SUPERHIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

HAL Id: jpa-00221894

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00221894

Submitted on 1 Jan 1982

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

H. Terazawa

To cite this version:

H. Terazawa. SUPERHIGH ENERGY PHYSICS. Journal de Physique Colloques, 1982, 43 (C3),

pp.C3-191-C3-202. �10.1051/jphyscol:1982341�. �jpa-00221894�

JOURNAL DE PHYSIQUE

CoZZoque C3, s u p p l d m e n t au n o 12, Tome 43, ddcembre 1982 page C3-191

SUPERHIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

H. Terazawa

INS, U n i v e r s i t y o f Tokyo, T a n a s h i , T o k y o 288, Japan, MPI fiir P h y s i k und A s t r o p h y s i k , 8000 Miinchen 40, F.R. Germany, ICTP, I-34100 T r i e s t e , I t a l y and CERN, CH-1211, Geneva 23, S w i t z e r l a n d

I. INTRODUCTION

I have been asked by Professor Yamaguchi, the organizer of this session on accelerator and cosmic ray physics to be a mini-rapporteur on cosmic ray side in case that Professor Chudakov who had been asked originally may not be able to come to this Conference. It is very unfortunate that Professor Chudakov, the world expert in this field, could not come so that I must do some really hard work to review not only the numerous cosmic ray data but the comparisons of them with the accelerator data as well as the various theoretical interpretations of them Ill. I will try to do my best in the following.

Let me first remind you of what we had as standards of reference in seventies by repeating my talk presented at the XVI International Cosmic Ray Conference in 1979 [2], which started as follows:

What interest us most in cosmic ray physics are the reported anomalous phenomena such as the unusually high multiplicity of charged particles seen in the Niu's charm event [3] and similar ones [ 4 , 51 and in the Centauro events t61 with very few y's and the anomalously slow absorption seen in the Bristol event [7] and in the Tien-Shan hadronic cascade events

[ a ] .

It seems quite certain that

something unusual happened not only in these events but also in the high pT multiple core events [9], a11 at energies of 10-1000TeV. What is happening at around 100 TeV? The purpose of the following sections is to make my conjectures on this very intriguing question.

1. Why lOOTeV?

It is obvious! It has been well known for a long time since the era of Heisenberf that something drastic must happen in the weak interaction at c.m.

energy ( s) of about 300GeV where the dimensionless parameter GFs (where GF is the Fermiweak coupling constant) becomes of the order of unity. More fashionably, the weak vector bosons 'W and Z are expected to have masses of the order of lOOGeV in

the Glashow-Salam-Weinberg gauge theory of electroweak interactions [lo] so that they may be copiously produced or start playing important roles at lab. energies of around 100TeV. It is not only these mass scales but the mass scales of heavy leptons and heavy quarks that may indicate lOOTeV as a critical lab. energy for their copious productions. In fact, in our unified model of all elementary- particle forces including gravity [ll] there must exist a dozen leptons (6

neutrinos and 6 charged leptons) and a dozen flavors and three colors of quarks (18 up quarks and 18 down quarks) whose masses (m's) should satisfy the following three sum rules:

G - %?/A=

^{dra/& sin} 2 ⁰

/ A %

^35.2GeV and

F w

Article published online by EDP Sciences and available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/jphyscol:1982341

where m~ is the mass of the physical Higgs scalar H, KO = 1/3, Q's and NO are the charges and the total number of leptons and quarks, respectively, and GN is the Newtonian gravitational constant. Notice that the latter two sum rules indicate that the arithmetic and geometric average masses of leptons and quarks are remarkably close to each other although they are derived independently. I, therefore, strongly suggest that there exist much heavier leptons and quarks whose masses are of the order of 100GeV, which would make the lOOTeV physics more colorful.

Furthermore, I wish to declare that the time has come to convince ourselves of the existence of subquarks [12], the more fundamental particles which are building blocks of these so+many leptons and quarks. Also, it seems reasonable that the gauge bosons (y, W, Z, G~ for a=1-8, etc.) as well as the Higgs scalar (H, etc.) are all bound states of subquark-antisubquark pairs. In any case, the existence of these subquarks would make the lOOTeV physics more exciting provided that the mass scale of subquarks is as low as 100-1000GeV. In fact, in our subquark model, the average effective mass of the subquarks (w) must satisfy the following relation:

I, therefore, emphasize that the threshold energy of subquark-antisubquark pair creation may be as low as 70GeV.

2. What wouid happen at 10-1000TeV?

The strong interaction of quarks seems to be best described by quantum chromo- dynamics (QCD) [13], the Yang-Mills gauge theory [14] of color SU(3) [15]. It is well known that the pure QCD is asymptotically free if the total number of quark flavors is less than 16 [16]. Recently, however, we have shown that the possible freedom of QCD can not be asymptotic but only be temporary due to the mutual interference between the strong and electroweak interactions of quarks [17]. We have further suggested a possibility of "asymptotic catastrophen where all the interactions become strong as energies go beyond the "temporary freedom" region.

The turning point for the asymptotic catastrophe strongly depends on the total number of quark flavors. It should, however, be emphasized that the critical energy can be as low as lOOGeV if there exist more than 18 flavors of quarks. If this is the case, not only the electroweak interactions of leptons and quarks but also the strong interaction of quarks becomes again abnormally strong so that any anomalous phenomena may well occur in lOOTeV regions. Also, we have recently demonstrated that even if quarks were confined temporarily inside hadrons in QCD, they could be liberated by other interactions (e.g., the electroweak interactions) than the strong one [18]. To estimate the energy necessary for such liberation is hard at this stage. However, suppose that the origin of quark liberation is electroweak, then the threshold energy or the mass of a physical quark can be as small as lOOGeV, the typical mass scale in the electroweak interactions.

Therefore, it does not seem extremely radical to suggest that free quarks also may be produced at lab. energies larger than 100TeV.

As emphasized in Section 1, the one thing which is certain is the drastic change of the behavior of electroweak interactions at lab. energies of the order of 100TeV. The weak vector bosons (and the Higgs scalars, if any) can be copiously produced electroweakly. There seems to exist enough experimental evidence for the SU(2)xU(l) gauge symmetry of Glashow, Salam and Weinberg. There does not, however,

H. Terazawa

exist any evidence for the

local

gauge symmetry at present. It means that although the weak vector bosons 'W and Z in the Glashow-Salam-Weinberg model are to be found with masses of the order of lOOGeV, they may not behave as elementary as expected in the model. It would be likely that they may appear just as continuum states of the "weak bosonic matter" which consists of all lepton-antilepton and

quark-antiquark pairs. Not only they but also the physical Higgs scalar may appear as bound states of subquark-antisubquark pairs as expected in our subquark model.

If so,-they may even decay into a subquark-antisubquark pair which would produce an eminent pair of jets.

Let us now remind you of the old works of Appelquist and Bjorken [I91 and of myself [201, in which the possibility of composite weak vector bosons is discussed in detail. An essential point in these works is that all the known weak

interaction processes at low energies, where momentum transfers involved are small compared to the masses of weak vector bosons, can be reproduced if the spectral functions of weak vector bosons p1,2(m2) satisfy the conditions of

where

g,

(= g / 6 ) in the Glashow-Salam-Weinberg model(where g is the SU(2) gauge coupling constant) is the semi-weak coupling constant and M is a typical order of the mass of leptons and quarks invovled. These conditions together with the normalization conditions of

2 2 2 2

Idm

pl(m ) = 1 and !dm p2(m ) =

can be transformed into the following two sum rules for the charged current processes, for example:

Jdso(;JL+"W") /s = 4 a ~ ~ / f i and

where "W" denotes the "charged weak bosonic matter". Also, since the neutral current processes at low energies seem to be well described by the Glashow-Salam- Weinberg model, the similar conditions can be transformed into the following two similar sum rules for the neutral current processes, for example:

~d~u(e+e-+'~~") 1s = n~~[(l-4sin~e~) '+I] / 2 f i and

2 2 2 2 2

/dsu(efe-+"z") = a a[(l-4sin 8 ) +1]/4sin

e

cos

e

W W w

'

where "Z" denotes the "neutral weak bosonic matter". As far as sum rules of these types are satisfied, the "shape" of the weak vector boson does not need to be a single peak but can be anything. If the weak vector bosons appear with a few peaks followed by many bumps as illustrated in

Fig. 1, it would most clearly indicate that they are not elementary but composite as expected in our subquark model. I, therefore, strongly urge experimentalists to be still alert for seeing the possible sub-structure and

even for producing the possible subquark-antisubquark pairs even after

-

the anticipated exciting discovery of

the weak vector bosons in eighties.

+ -

Fig. 1 : e +e -+"Z1'

3. How can we explain the anomalous phenomena?

In concluding the first part of this talk, I shall make some conjectures on the anomalous phenomena observed in the cosmic ray events at energies of 10-1000 TeV, based on the above mentioned possible behavior of the strong and electroweak interactions of leptons and quarks at superhigh energies. The anomalously high multiplicities and possible "fire-balls" observed in the Niu's charm event and similar ones can be explained by either one of the following possibilities: 1) the production of weak vector bosons (or "weak bosonic matters") followed by their fast decays into a bunch of leptons and hadrons [211, 2) the production of very heavy leptons and/or quarks followed by their fast cascade decays into lighter leptons and/or quarks,

*,

~ ~ + d ~ + u ~ + d ~ ~ ~ + d ~ + t + b + c + s + u [21], 3) the production of subquark-antisubquark pairs followed by their fast "photonization", "weak- bosonization", "gluonization", "leptonization" and "quarkization" followed by hadronization into jets [Ill and 4) the production of anomalous nuclei such as superheavy hypernuclei followed by their decays into leptons and hadrons [22]. It seems, however, hard to explain the production of a large number of nuclear active particles without noticeable emission of neutral pions and 0's observed in the Centauro events in either one of these pictures. It is really beyond our

imagination. Also hard to explain is the anomalously slow apsorption observed in the Bristol and Tien-Shan events. The slower apsorption means the weaker

interaction with the matter. As mentioned in Section 2, however, all the

interactions of leptons and quarks might become strong at this superhigh energy on the contrary! It might be that these really unusual events be explained by the possibility 4) in which the breakdown of isospin invariance is most enhanced. In any case, these misterious events may also indicate a revolutionary change of our notion. I should, however, mention that I have just received the papers

contributed to this Conference by the-UA5 and UA1 Collaborations [23] for a search for Centauro events at the CERN SPS pp Collider which have reported no candidates.

I shall review these papers in more detail later.

11. OBSERVED SUPERHIGH-ENERGY PHENOMENA

Now I am ready to review all the superhigh-energy phenomena observed so far in both accelerator and cosmic ray experiments, to make comparisons of them and to give some theoretical interpretations of them. To do that, I shall make an emphasis on the following eminent features commonly seen in all the experimental data on hadron-hadron inelastic collisions at lab. energies of the order of 10-1000 TeV or c.m. energies of the order of 100-1000GeV.

;s+T

1. Rapidly increasing <n> All inelastic: , . : :orA=./5Gev

Fig. 2 shows all the available data [24-281 on <?,' a FNALdataiRef.24!

the average multiplicity of charged particles (<n >) ' i S R d a ~ a ~ f ' ~ ~ 2 ~ !

produced in p-p and p-p (or nucleon-nucleon) ch

1 ^-

^{Balloon caia LRef.25] / I}

inelastic collisions at c.m. energies (&) ranging Nbn-diffractive: 1 ^/

j

from about lOGeV to 540GeV. It clearly indicates x FFLAL data ~i(>f.iVY /'.

that the average charged multiplicity increases ^{0 ISR} dataiD&271/

,/

rapidly as energy increases from the Fermilab PS ³ S?S datdlPd..i91 ..

j

energy to the CERN SPS p-p Collider energy and that i

,':,,'

A i n ' ( / i m ) + S k ( r J / 2 h l J + L ^.

the old cosmic ray balloon data point for & ^{2 180} .,j7 fov A - ^{. s 6 ,} a= -. 2 ,

:eV is located remarkably well on the_ interpolating

lei/

^{c=-.:fmd m=.z52sev}

line between the CERN ISR p-p and p-p data points L%k.25,,29]

and the CERN SPS p-p data point. A reasonable fit _3' to these data seeks to be given by the formula of

Thomi5

e.

type [25], O

1

_;O ^{. . , : , , . ,} _:03 ^. _-13

_

_IGev, ^{, . . .}

^{. .}

^{:,:203 . :}

Fig. 2: <n > vs Js ch

H. Terazawa

where the constants, A, B, C and m, are best fit by Gavai and Satz [29] as A = .56, B = -.3, C = -.21 and m = .292 GeV.

Although I have no time to discuss the various theoretical predictions on the increasing multiplicities, which can be found in Ref. 29 and in the contributed paper by Muraki [30], I must emphasize, as the UA5 Collaboration did, that the old and classic prediction by Fermi and Landau [31] in their statistical and

hydrodynamical models of <n> = s1I4 fails in fitting the cosmic ray balloon data and SPS p-p - - Collider data.

2. Gradually increasing <PT> ( p.1 < h d l c ) (a)

Fig. 3(a) shows the three data 126-281 on the

500j

T S R aata(i(ef 271

K 3alioan ca;a CRer 261 , /

average transverse momentum of produced charged 9

particles (<pT>) as a function of the c.m. energy. ^O ~ P S d a t d C a e f 2 8 1 _ n '

It indicates that the average transverse momentum c-- gradually increases as the energy increases from the 300

ISR energy to the SPS energy and that the old _{- C}

balloon data point is again located remarkably well 10 100 1000

on the interpolating line between the ISR and SPS

E ( G ~ v )

data points. I would not present any fit to these ( n c . F ( p - ) / ~ (b)

data at this stage with the small number of data s 1

points with the large error bars. Nor would I a '

I

compare these data with any theoretical predictions. - - - - -

j

^{- - -}

6 1 However, I would like to point out the following s!

remarkable observation: Fermi and Landau can still 4 I , , , , , I , , , , , , , . I

survive! Suppose that ^{10 100 1000}

&(G ev

<n _ch > =

(Jay)

^1/2 Fig. 3: <p > vs ds

^-

T

where

u

is not a constant butanl'order parameter", which can weakly depend on the energy, {CF. This order parameter which describes the hadronic matters produced in hadron-hadron collisions may simply be proportional to the temperature (T) or more sophisticatedly be given by the vacuum expectation value of the condensating field (<$>). In any case, it seems natural to assume that also

Then, these two assumptions lead to the simple relation of

2 -

<rich>

< p >/Js = constant (= -70 ? .05).

T

Fig. 3(b) shows that this relation is satisfied by the experimental data remarkably well.

3. Anomalously increasing o-lda/drl

Fig. 4 shows the data on the normalized I

differential cross section (rs-ldoldn) with respect to , T = ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~

the pseudo-rapidity (q = -Rntan(8c.m./2)) from the ^C i5a da:acRe:.Z71

UA5 Collaboration at the ISR and SPS

p-c

Colliders.

Although the data from the UA1 Collaboration [321 at the SPS p-p Collider are also available, they have not been included here since their data points are systematically a little higher than the corresponding points from the UA5 and since the data at the ISR energies are not available from the UA1. This figure 1:

clearly indicates that as the energy increases from the ISR energy to the SPS one, the pseudo-rapidity

distribution of produced particles changes in such a , ,

.

^{, .}

way that not only the width of the plateau gradually O 2 ,I

i7i 5 5

increases but also the height of it does. This 1 drs tendency of the pseudo-rapidity distribution also ^Fig. 4 : -

-

^vs

1111

dn

seems to have been well known by cosmic ray physicists for a long time but, of course, with the much less accuracies [33].

It should also be noticed that the shape of the plateau in the pseudo-rapidity distributions changes drastically. At the ISR energy, the central plateau is flat and the shape as a whole looks like that of a noble volcano such as Mt. Fuji. As the energy increases from the ISR energy to the SPS one, the shape of the mountain is deformed into that of another type of volcano either with two peaks or with a large caldera such as Mt. Aso (which has the world-largest caldera). This existence of two peaks may be misleading. It looks as if it would indicate two eminent jets or two "fire-balls" running away from each other and decaying into many hadrons. Does this mean that they have already found the evidence for

subquark-antisubquark pair creations? In fact, in the contributed paper by Gao and Xo [34], they have claimed that the anomalously high multiplicities and the

anomalously large transverse momenta seen in the unusual cosmic ray events can be well explained by the possible production of "subquark fire-balls". If this were

the case, it would be the most exciting topic in this Conference without any question! As far as the observed pseudo-rapidity distributions are concerned, it seems premature to claim an evidence for the production of subquark-antisubquark pairs or any pairs of new heavy particles since the data for both energies of 4s =

53GeV and 540GeV can be perfectly well fit by the Monte-Carlo calculation of the UA5 Collaboration based on the conventional model with limited transverse momenta

of <pT> = 350MeV/c and 500MeV/c as is clearly seen in Fig. 4. A more detailed

~nvestigation of the azimuthal-angle distributions and the angular correlations of produced particles will be definitely needed before finding whether there exists any evidence for two eminent jets or not.

4. Fire-balls? True or false?

It has been one of the most intriguing question or just a mystery for a long time in cosmic ray physics whether the so-called "fire-balls" exist or what they are if they do 16, 331. Now that accelerator energies have increased high enough to compete with the cosmic ray energies where they claimed to find the fire-balls, accelerator physics is expected to give a definite answer to the question. In fact, the contributed papers by the UA5 and UA1 Collaborations [23] for a search for Centauro events at the SPS pp Collider enable us to be much closer to the final answer, which will be discussed in the following:

Historically, the Brasil-Japan Emulsion Chamber Collaboration 161 has found several unusual cosmic ray events at superhigh energies larger than lOOOTeV with extremely high multiplicities of pr duced hadrons (nh = 100k20) and with unusually high average transverse momenta (I~:Y)> = .35+.106eV/c) but without any y's observed and also several similar events but with much less hadron multiplicities (nh = 15k2) and called them "Centauro" and "Mini-Centauro" events, respectively.

They have also found another type of unusual events with moderate hadron

multiplicities (nh = 22k4) but with extremely high transverse momenta (<pp)> = 2.0 +.5GeV/c) and yet another type of similar events but with only two charged

particles observed. They have called

Table 1: Centauro type events [6]

these types of events "Chiron" and _{- .}

"Geminion" events, respectively. Table 1 summarizes these unusual events. On the other hand, very lately, the UA5 and UA1 Collaborations have tried to find

candidates for the Centauro type of events by the SPS pp Collider at c.m. energy of 540GeV. Fig. 5 shows some of their reported results, which indicate no candidates for the Centauro events. There

event r o x a i o b r ~ ~ ~ d visible nuaocr cncrsy ( I c V ) C- end

Pb-jet*

are only two possibilities left: 1) no 70s-58'-'9 lbO 2 2 5 0 1 1 5 2.16

Centauro events can occur in p-p I ~ ~ S - I S ~ I - L I 368.7 10 5 330 f 30 1.77

5 - 5 9 69.4 i l i 2

:

^3.28

H. Terazawa

Fig. 5 : No Centauros seen [23].

collisions and 2) if they can, the threshold energy for the events to occur lies in the region between 540 GeV in the c.m. system and over 1000 TeV in the lab. system (or about 1 TeV in the c.m. system for nucleon-nucleon collisions). The former possi- bility would be likely if the events could be produced only by heavy nuclei as inci- dent particles. If the latter is the case, it would be even more exciting since it would mean that there might exist a new particle or something alike with the mass of the order of 1 TeV (or 500 GeV if pair-produced). Increasing the energy of the SPS

pp

Collider up to 1 TeV or building the Fermilab 2 TeV Collider would be most desired to find (or eliminate) the latter possibility.

111. UNOBSERVED-PARTICLE TABLE

There are so many new particles predicted and yet unobserved. It seems just impossible to remember all of them. For future accelerator and cosmic ray experiments, I have revised the UNOBSERVED-PARTICLE TABLE made by Bjorken in 1977 [I] and presen- ted it in Table 2. Obviously, I have no time to explain what these particles are, who have predicted them, who have tried to find them and what the present status of their experimental searches is, one by one. Please find these details in literatures.

I, however, would like to discuss a couple of the contributed papers and the one recent paper handed to me, all of which ate related to this Table.

In the contributed paper by Yock [35], he has reported the recent results from the first 2000 hours of operation of the new improved range telescope, which has been built at the University of Auckland to study heavy particles in the cosmic ray radia- tion and to attempt to determine conclusively if an anomalously heavy component is present. He has found two particles which appear to be anomalously heavy and has concluded that it is likely that there is a flux, near the zenith at sea level, of a few x 10-~cm-*sec-~sr-~ of low energy ($ = .624 and .536) ,singly charged (Q = 21.00 and rt.98) particles with mass larger than 4.5 mp. He does not claim what they are. They can, however, be the fourth heavy charged leptons.

In the contributed paper by Muraki [36], he has claimed that the very narrow muon bundles induced by very high energy cosmic ray interactions can be explained by the production of beauty mesons (B) followed by their decays into multi-muons, as discussed in Section 30f ChapterI. If his Monte Carlo calculation is right, it cer- tainly indicates that what he has claimed is reasonable. He has also concluded that the production cross section of beauty mesons is as large as 200 pb at lab. energies of 2000 TeV.

T a b l e 2:

UNOBSERVED-PARTICLE TABLE

I) Claimed or to be observed Quarks (q) ( ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ ; ~ ) Monopoles (rn)

Tachyons (Tachy) Weak basons (w' and 7.) Dyons (Dy)

Gluans (G) Gravitons (g) 2) Well-established

New leptons (2)

New charged leptons (L-,

. .

^.)

New neutral leptons (EO,MO,TO,.. .) (Massive neutrinos or Majorons) New Flavored hadrons (T, ... ) New onia (C,. . .)

Heavier gauge bosons (W'? ,Z' , . . .) Higgs bosons and alike (H.. . .)

Scalons (Scal)

Pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone bosons (P N-G) Axions (a)

Glueballs (Gb)

Super-hlgh-spin hadrons (e.g.. pJ'137 )

14 G e V < m 4 .02 m g ? rn

-

10" GeV (theor.) mTachy

-

imaginary (theor.) mWe mZ

-

80-100 GeV (theor.) m = 0 (theor.)

mL > 16 GeV

mEo > 17 GeV, 14 keV < rn < 46 keV ?

mvu c .57 MeV, qT < 250 keV Ve mT > 17 Gev

mo

.

^{34 Gev}

%.t.mZ, > 80 GeV (theor.) mH > 70 GeV (theor.)

170 keV < m (=250 F 25 keV?) < 210 keV?

m = 1440 i 15 MeV, m = 1660k50 MeV mJ

-

^fi GeV (theor.)

3) Familiar

Superpartners (Sup) Gravitinas ( q ) Photinos (?)

Gluinos ( E ) m- > 3.5-6 GeV

Other gauge bosinos

(v

,Z, . . . ) Scalar leptons (St)

Scalar neutrinos (~eutrininos) (S,, _e.Su ,Su _{l l 7}

..

^{. .)} _{> 16.6 GeV}

Scalar charged leptons (leptinos)(Se,SU.ST

,... )?

^{< Gev}

Scalar quarks (S ) mSkI > 15 GeV

Scalar up quarks ( U ~ - Q U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ) ( S ~ , S ~ , S tt...) ScaLar down-quarks (~~wn-quarkinos)(S~.S~,S~,

...)

Leptoquarks (X,Y, ... ) m, > loi5 GeV (theor) Colored bosons and fermions

Diotons (Di) Subquarks (S)

Wakems ( w . i = 1.2) mw

-

35 GeV (theor .) Hakams ( h . 3 = I.. . . ,N;N = 1.2.3,. . .6?)

Chroms (Ck k = 0,1,2,3)

Fire-balls (H,SH,UH quanta) (m,, -2GeV.MSHq-20 GeV, % -200GeV Centaur0 fireballs (Cent) mCent

-

^{200-300 GeV}

Mini-Centaur0 fire-balls (Mini) rnl .

-

^{20-30 GeV}

Chirons (Chir) mChir-200-300GeV

Geminions (Gemi) nGemi

-

^{20-30 GeV}

Anomalons (Anom) m ~ n o m " mnucleus

Sub-Subquarks (Ss)

H. Terazawa

Very r e c e n t l y , t h e new JACEE (balloon-borne emulsion chamber) C o l l a b o r a t i o n [37] has r e p o r t e d some new unusual phenomena i n nucleus-nucleus i n t e r a c t i o n s a t e n e r g i e s g r e a t e r t h a n 1 TeV/nucleon, i n c l u d i n g one e v e n t w i t h t h e extremely h i g h charged m u l t i p l i c i g (rich

2

1050) and s e v e r a l e v e n t s w i t h a p p a r e n t high t r a n s v e r s e momentum ( < P T ( ~ ) > = 540 ~ e V / c ) p a r t i c l e

51 + fro -+ 1050ch +

.--

p r o d u c t i o n s . F i g . 6 shows some of t h e i r CD = 3.6 Tev/n

r e s u l t s . They have concluded r a t h e r modestly t h a t nucleus-nucleus i n t e r a c t i o n s

may h o t be p r e s e n t e d by simple super- ^{ca + Pp}

-

^{GJCch + ..-}

Eo ' ^,DO rev,"

p o s i t i o n s of nucleon-nucleon i n t e r a c t i o n s a t t h i s high energy. May i t be due t o t h e

c r e a t i o n of o r t h e phase t r a n s i t i o n t o ^{ID-C 1 0 - 3 10-2 10-1} abnormal n u c l e a r m a t t e r s , abnormal quark t a n eCh

m a t t e r s ( o r quark-gluon plasma) o r what ?

Together w i t h t h e p o s s i b l e e x i s t e n c e of F i g . 6: JACEE e v e n t s [37]

"anomalons" r e c e n t l y claimed by t h e

Berkeley heavy-ion experimental group [38], t h e s e new unusual e v e n t s observed by t h e JACEE C o l l a b o r a t i o n i n d i c a t e t h a t n u c l e a r physics a t very high e n e r g i e s would a l s o be e x c i t i n g .

I V . CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS: AN ENERGY-SCALE TABLE, A FINAL THEORY AND THE END OF PHYSICS

I n concluding t h i s t a l k , I would l i k e t o summarize what I have d i s c u s s e d by t h e foilowing two sentences:

1) The old cosmic ray d a t a and t h e new a c c e l e r a t o r d a t a a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h each o t h e r a t v e r y high e n e r g i e s of 10-100 TeV i n a l l t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c phenomena i n c l u d i n g r a p i d l y i n c r e a s i n g average m u l t i p l i c i t i e s , g r a d u a l l y i n c r e a s i n g average t r a n s v e r s e momenta and anomalously i n c r e a s i n g cr-ldcr/dr) except f o r t h e unusual phenomena s e e n i n t h e cosmic r a y d a t a i n c l u d i n g t h e Centauro type of e v e n t s . 2) I n o r d e r t o s e e whether t h e Centauro type of e v e n t s can occur i n hadron-hadron c o l l i s i o n s , i n c r e a s i n g t h e energy of t h e SPS pp C o l l i d e r up t o , s a y , 1 TeV o r b u i l d i n g t h e Fermilab 2 TeV C o l l i d e r i s h i g h l y d e s i r a b l e .

For f u t u r e p r o s p e c t s i n superhigh energy p h y s i c s , l e t me show an ENERGY-SCALE TABLE i n Table 3 . It seems t o me t h a t p h y s i c s h a s changed a l r e a d y t h r e e times and w i l l change a g a i n d r a m a t i c a l l y a s energy i n c r e a s e s by a f a c t o r of about 3 x 1 0 5 , a s can be s e e n i n t h i s Table. This q u a n t i z a t i o n of t h e energy o r mass s c a l e may be r e l a t e d t o t h e famous Large Number Hypothesis by D i r a c [39]. It a l s o seems t o me t h a t i t h a s t a k e n and w i l l t a k e about a q u a r t e r c e n t u r y t o go through one g e n e r a t i o n of p h y s i c s : atomic physics i n 1900-1925, n u c l e a r physics i n 1925-1950, hadron p h y s i c s i n 1950-1975,lepton-quark physics i n 1975-2000, subquark p h y s i c s 2000-2025 and s o on.

I f t h i s c o n t i n u e s t o be t h e case, t h e end of p h y s i c s w i l l come around i n 2050.

I t i s then n a t u r a l t o ask what t h e f i n a l t h e o r y i n physics looks l i k e . I t should d e s c r i b e and e x p l a i n n o t only e v e r y t h i n g i n our Universe b u t even t h e o r i g i n of o u r Universe. I have r e c e n t l y t r i e d t o c o n s t r u c t such a f i n a l theory i n subquark p h y s i c s [40] and i n pregeometry 1411, and made a c a n d i d a t e , "subquark pregeometry"

which i s based on t h e two p r i n c i p l e s ( r e l a t i v i t y and quantum) and t h e two hypotheses (fundamental l e n g t h and compositeness). I t e f f e c t i v e l y reproduces n o t only gauge t h e o r i e s f o r t h e s t r o n g and electroweak f o r c e s of t h e fermions ( l e p t o n s and quarks) b u t g e n e r a l r e l a t i v i t y of E i n s t e i n f o r g r a v i t y a t low e n e r g i e s . A t extremely h i g h e n e r g i e s , i t p r e d i c t s an i n f i n i t e s e r i e s of n o n l i n e a r i n t e r a c t i o n s of t h e fermions, t h e gauge bosons and t h e space-time m e t r i c . This supergrand u n i f i e d theory a l s o p r e d i c t s many simple r e l a t i o n s between t h e fundamental coupling c o n s t a n t s and t h e p a r t i c l e masses and g i v e s a simple e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e Big Bang of our Universe [42].

P l e a s e f i n d t h e d e t a i l s of t h i s new t h e o r y i n my paper which w i l l be published elsewhere [43]

.

The time seems t o be up. C e r t a i n l y , physics w i l l end when t h e time ends.

However, preeeometry would s u r v i v e beyond t h e end of t h e time [44]!.

Table 3:

ENERGY-SCALE-TABLE

ENERGY LENGTH

Extremely high Energy (EKE)

102' eV (10L9 G ~ V )

Super-High-Energy (SHE)

3 x 1 0 ~ ~ e~ 3~10-~'cm (3x10'~ ~ e v )

Ultra-High-Energy (UHE)

ev

YEAR PHYSICS or PREGEOPlETRY

2050- Subquark Pregeometry, Sub-Subquark Pregeometry or Sub-Sub-Subquark Pregeometry ? No Physics

2025-2050 Subquark P r e g e m t r y or Sub-subquark Physics ? (Subquark Pregeometry.

Sub-Subquark Pregeometry or Sub-Sub-subquark Model ?)

2000-2025 Subquark Physics (Subquark Pregeometry or Sub-Subquark Model ?)

Very High Energy 1975-2000

(we) 3x10" ev 3 ~ 1 0 - ~ ~ c m Lepton-Quark Physics ( 3 x 1 0 ~ GeV) (Subquark Nodel) G;"~ = 292.9 GeV

High Energy 1950-1975

(HE) lo6 e~ 10-llcm Hadron Physics

( 1 MeV) (LOO£) (Gell-MM-Zweig Quark

Wodel of Hsdrons) md-me-mn=2.2247(107)MeV

Medium Energy 1925-1920

(ME) 3 eV 3xl0-'cm Nuclear Physics

(3 (Heisenberg Model of Nuclei)

~_(=~~m~/2)=13.605804(36)e~

Low Energy (LE)

1900-1925 Atomic Physics (Nagaoka M d e l of Atoms)

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank many accelerator.and cosmic ray physicists including Profs.

and Drs. Y. Fujimoto, Ho Tso-Hsiu, M. Koshiba, H. Kumano, Y. Muraki, J. Rushbrooke, T. Saito, Yong-Shi Wu and Y. Yamaguchi for their useful comments and communications.

I also wish to thank Professor H.P. Diirr at Max-Planck-Institut fiir Physik und Astrophysik, Professor A. Salam at International Centre for Theoretical Physics and Drs. D. Amati, J. Prentki and G. Veneziano for their warm hospitalities and financial supports extended to me during my stay at these Institutes where this talk has been prepared and this proceeding has been written.

References

1. For an earlier review on the similar subjects, see for example BJORKEN J.D., in Paoc. 1977 T n t m n a t i a d Sgmponh on Lepton and Phozon Intenaotiom

at

High Enmgiu, ^{edited by} F . Gutbrod (DESY, Hamburg, 1977), p. 960.

2. TERAZAWA H., in P ~ O C . X V I Intanation& COA~?& Rag CondUL~fi~e, Kyoto (ICRR, Univ. of Tokyo, 1979), vol. 7, p. 395.

3. NIU K., MIKUMO E., MAEDA Y., Prog. Theor. Phys. 46 (1971) 1644.

4. KURAMATA S. et a1

. ^,

ⁱⁿ Ptroc. X I I I Intetrnationd

Ehmic Rag

condehence, ^Denver (1973) Vol. 3, p.2239.

H. Terazawa

5. FUCHI H., e t a l . , i n Pxoc. X V I n t m n a t i o n d Cvnmic Ray Con&tence, P l o v d i v (1977) v o l . 7, p.382.

6. BRASIL-JAPAN EMULSION CHAMBER COLLABORATION, i n Pxac. X V Intmna;tiond Cobmic Ray Con&.hence, P l o v d i v (1977) v o l . 7 , p.208 and t h e c o n t r i b u t e d p a p e r s t o t h i s Conference, #0192 a n d # Q 1 9 3 . For a review, s e e LATTES C.M.G., FUJIMOTO Y . and HASEGAWA S. Phys..Rep. C65 (1980) 951.

7. FOWLER P., i n Pxoc. Intm%xa%ond Con~mence on TheoxeAicd k p e d od Vmy High Enmgy Phenomena, CERN 61-22 (1961) p . 125.

8. YAKOVLEV V. I . , NIKOLSKY S . I . and PAVLUCHENKO V.P., i n P ~ o c . X V I n t m n a t i o n d Cabmic Ray Con~ettence, P l o v d i v ( 1977) p. 1 15.

9. See f o r example, GAISSER T.K., i n Pkoc. XV IvLtmnationd Cobmic Ray C o n ~ u e n c e , P l o v d i v , (1977), p.24.

10. GLASHOW S.L., Nucl. Phys. 22 (1961) 579 ; SALAM A . , i n ELemevLtahy P ~ & e Phynicn, e d i t e d by N . ~ v a r x o l m (Almqvist and W i k s e l l , Stockholm, 1968), p.367;

WEINBERG S., Phys. Rev. L e t t . 19 (1967) 1264.

11. TERAZAWA H . , CHIKASHIGE Y. andAAKAMA K., Phys. Rev.

D15

(1977) 480.

TERAZAWA H . , CHIKASHIGE Y . , AKAMA K . and MATSUKI Y.,

e. ¹⁵

(1977) 1181;

TERAZAWA H.,

K.

16 (1977) 2373, 22 (1980) 1037 agd 2921;

TERAZAWA H. and AKA= K., Phys. ~ e t c 96B (1980) 276 and 97B (1980) 8 1 . F o r a review, s e e TERAZAWA H., i n P ~ c . X I X m e h n a t i o n d Con&mence on High Enugy Phynicn, e d i t e d by S. Homrna e t a l . (Phys. Soc. o f J a p a n , Tokyo, 1979) p.617.

12. TERAZAWA H., CHIKASHIGE Y . and AKAMA K . , i n r e f . 11 ;

TERAZAWA H . , Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 184. For r e c e n t r e v i e w s , s e e TERAZAWA H., i n P ~ o c . 7 9 8 1 INS Sympobhm?k 2u!uank Lepton P h y ~ i c n , ~ o k y o , e d i t e d by Fujikawa K . , e t a l . (INS, Univ. of Tokyo, Tokyo, 1981), p.296; PESKIN M.E., i n PRoc. ? 9 b 7 I n t u n a t i a n d Sympobium on Lepton and Photon I n t e ~ a O t i 0 ~ 6 at High Enugien, Bonn, e d i t e d by W. P f e i l (Univ. Bonn, Bonn, 1981). p.880. F o r o b s e r v a b l e e f f e c t s of t h e s u b - s t r u c t u r e of l e p t o n s and q u a r k s , s e e TERAZAWA H . and AKAMA K . , Phys.

L e t t . (1981) 190 and TERAZAWA H., YASUE M., AKAMA K. and HAYASHI M.,

K.

112B (1982) 387.

13.

WU,

Y . , i n Pk&udCb i n TheoheXicd Phynic.4, e d i t e d by A. de S h a l i t (North- Holland, Amsterdam, 1966) ; FRITZSCH H . and GELL-MANN M . , inPtroc.XVI Zntehn&od Con~mence on High Enmgy Phynia, e d i t e d by A. R o b e r t s (NAL, B a t a v i a , 1973) v o l . 2,p.135.

14. YANG C.N. and MILLS R.L., Phys. Rev. 96 (1954) 191.

15. HAN M.Y. and NAMBU Y . , Phys. Rev. 2 7 1 9 6 5 ) B1006 ; MIYAMOTO Y . , Prog. Theor.

Phys., Suppl. E x t r a Number (1965) 187. See a l s o GREENBERG O.W., Phys. Rev. L e t t . 13. (1964) 598.

16. ~ S D.J. S and WILCZEK F., Phys. Rev. L e t t .

30

(1973) 1343 ; POLITZER H . D . ,

E.

30 (1973) 1346.

17. ~ R A Z A W A H., CHIKASHIGE Y . and AKAMA K . , Prog. Theor. Phys.

61

(1979) 1515.

18. TERAZAWA H . , AKAMA K. and CHIKASHIGE Y . , Prog. Theor. Phys.

60

(1978) 1521.

19. APPELQUIST T. and BJORKEN J . D . , Phys. Rev. (1971) 3726.

20. TERAZAWA H., Phys. Rev. (1973) 3663 and i b i d . 8 (1973) 1817. F o r more r e c e n t works, s e e BJORKEN J.D., Phys. Rev. Dl9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) 3 3 7 and HUNG P.Q. and SAKURAI J.J., Nucl. Phys.

B143

(1978) 81 a n d B 1 4 8

-

(1979) 539.

21. TERAZAWA H . , Prog. Theor. Phys. 63 (1980) 1779.

22. TERAZAWA H . , INS-Report-336, ~ a ~ T 9 7 9 , ~ u b l i s h e d i n Genbkikakukenkyu (INS, Univ.

of Tokyo, Tokyo) v 0 1 . 2 5 , ~ ' 6 (1981) 51 ; C H I N S.A. and KERMAN A.K., Phys. Rev.

L e t t . 43 (1979) 1292. The p o s s i b i l i t y of s i m i l a r ( b u t n o t t h e same) anomalous n u c l e a r m a t t e r s have b e e n d i s c u s s e d i n BJORKEN J.D. and McLERRAN L.D., Phys.

Rev. D20 (1979) 2353.

23. UA5 C ~ A B O R A T I O N , The c o n t r i b u t e d p a p e r t o t h i s Conference, #0467 and

RUSHBROOKE J., i n t h e s e ~ r o c e e d i n ~ s ; UAl COLLABORATION, t h e c o n t r i b u t e d p a p e r t o t h i s Conference,#O671 and SPIRO M., i n t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s .

24. 100 GeV/c pp, BROMBERG C. e t a l . Phys. Rev. (1974) 1864;

MORSE W.M. e t a l . i b i d .

15

(1977) 6 6 ;

100 GeV/c

pp

WARD C.P. e t a l . , Nucl. Phys. B153 (1979) 299;

205 GeV/c pp WHITMORE J . e t a l . Phys. Rev. E ( 1 9 7 4 ) 273;

303 GeV/c pp FIRESTONE A. e t a l .

u; ¹⁰

(1974) 2080;

405 GeV/c pp BROMBERG C. e t a l . Phys. Rev. L e t t .

2

(1973) 1563.

25. THOME W. e t a l . , N u c l . Phys. (1977) 365.

26. SATOY.et a l . , J . P h y s . Soc. J a p a n 41 (1976) 1821; TASAKA S. e t a l . i n Phoc.

X V I I 'Intehnationd Canmic Ray Condehxce, P a r i s (CEA, S a c l a y , 1981) V01.5, p . 1 2 6 .

27. UA5 COLLABORATION, Phys. L e t t . (1982) 183.

28,.UA5 COLLABORATION, Phys. L e t t . (1981) 3 1 0 , 315 and RUSHBROOKE J., i n t h e s e P r o c e e d i n g s ; UA1 COLLABORATION, t h e c o n t r i b u t e d p a p e r s t o t h i s C o n f e r e n c e ,

#0672,#0673,#0674,#0675,#0676 a n d SPIRO M. i n t h e s e P r o c e e d i n g s . 29. GAVAI R.V. a n d SATZ, Phys. L e t t . (1982) 413.

30. MLIRAKI Y . , t h e c o n t r i b u t e d p a p e r t o t h i s C o n f e r e n c e , # 0 2 2 2 . - -

31. FERMI E., P r o g . T h e o r . P h y s .

1

(1950) 570 ; LANDAU L.D., I z v . Akad. Nauk. SSSR, S e r . F i z . 17 (1953) 51.

32. UAl C O L L A B ~ T I O N , P h y s . L e t t .

3

(1981) 320 and i n R e f . 28.

3 3 . F o r a r e v i e w , s e e f o r example LATTES C.M.G. e t a l . , i n R e f . 6.

3 4 . GAO CHONG-SHOU a n d Ho TSO-HSIU, t h e c o n t r i b u t e d p a p e r s t o t h i s C o n f e r e n c e ,

#0024,#0249,#0250,#0251,#0252.

35. YOCK P.C.M., t h e c o n t r i b u t e d p a p e r t o t h i s C o n f e r e n c e , 8 0 2 1 4 . 3 6 . MURAKI Y., t h e c o n t r i b u t e d p a p e r t o t h i s C o n f e r e n c e , # 0 2 2 3 .

3 7 . The JACEE COLLABORATION, t h e p a p e r p r e s e n t e d by T. SAITO a t t h e Second T o p i c a l C o n f e r e n c e o n Forward C o l l i d e r P h y s i c s , W i s c o n s i n , Dec. 1981, t o b e p u b l i s h e d i n AIP Condehence. Phoceedingn "pp C o U e . t Phynia!'.

38, FRIEDLANDER E.M. e t a l . Phys. Rev. L e t t . %,(1980) 1084.

39. DIRAC P.A.M., N a t u r e

139

(1937) 323. F o r a r e c e n t d i s c u s s i o n , s e e TERAZAWA H., Phys. L e t t . = , ( 1 9 8 1 ) 4 3 a n d r e f e r e n c e t h e r e i n .

40. F o r r e c e n t r e v i e w s , s e e TARAZAWA H. a n d PESKIN M.E., i n R e f . 12.

41. SAKHAROV A.D., Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR (1967) 70 [ S o v . Phys. JETP

12

(1968) 10401 ; AKAMA K . , CHIKASHIGE Y., MATSUKI Y. a n d TERAZAWA H., P r o g . T h e o r . P h y s . 6 0 (1978) 868. F o r a . r e c e n t r e v i e w s e e TERAZAWA H., i n Phac. Second Seminut T u a n t w n Ghavh$'. Academy o f S c i e n c e s o f t h e USSR, Moscow, O c t . 1981, t o b e p u b l i s h e d .

42. AKAMA K. and TERAZAWA H., ICl811118 (ICTP, T r i e s t e , 1981) t o b e p u b l i s h e d i n Gen. R e l a t i v . G r a v i t .

43. TERAZAWA H . , t o b e p u b l i s h e d .

44. MISNER C.W., THORNE K.S. a n d WHEELER J.A., Ghavkiu%on (Freeman, San F r a n c i s c o , 1 9 7 3 ) .