34
The Search for Magnetic Monopoles Exotic04, Durham, April 2004 David Milstead The University of Liverpool

David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    3

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

The Search for Magnetic Monopoles

Exotic04, Durham, April 2004

David Milstead The University of Liverpool

Page 2: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Why magnetic monopoles

Solve open questions in physics

symmetrisation of electromagnetismelectric charge quantisationunification of forcesproton decayconfinement of quarks

Page 3: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Dirac’s argument (1) • 1931• Angular momentum (L) in field of

monopole-electron system.

• One magnetic monopole ‘explains’ charge quantisation.

• n=1, g=µ0e/h = Dirac monopole.

ge

Lrθ

z

= µ0eg/4π z=nh/2

e=nh/gµ0

Page 4: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

The Dirac Monopole

QED coupling of DM αg=g2/4π = 34c.f. electric charge coupling αe=e2/4π = 1/137Perturbative field theory impossible.Ionisation losses huge for DM.Is 1,3/2,3 DM fundamental magnetic charge?What about dyons ?What about colourful monopoles ?

Page 5: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Monopoles from Gauge Theories• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’

symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole.

• Monopoles in SUSY gauge theories and string theory• Mass estimates vary between 104 – 1017 GeV

Mass – Mx/α

Page 6: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Consequences of GUT Monopoles

• Rubakov and Callan: GUT Monopoles catalyse proton decay.

• Baryon number violating fermioncondensate near to massive monopole.

uud

e+d u uMonopole

Monopoledduuuu + e+ + =

PionsProton

Page 7: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Monopole Searches

• Ionisation• Induction• Trajectory• Nuclear decay

Signatures

Look in cosmic rays, materials, accelerators.

Page 8: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Ionisation Loss• Adapted Bethe-Block formula for magnetic

charge. • dE/dx (DM) = (137/2)2 dE/dx (q)• No rise at low β

• Do we understand short range interactions?• How does a hadronic monopole interact ?

π+

Dirac Monopole

Page 9: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Induction Properties

Superconducting coil

i

i

i

distance

distance

ˆ(ˆ0 t

BjE m ∂∂

+−=×∇ µ

g

i=-(Φ + µ0g)/L

Flux ‘left by’ DM

dipole

Page 10: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Cabrera • Cosmic ray search 1981-1982 SLAC with SQUID• Famous observation of monopole, thermal noise,

spurned lover or student prank ?

Flux

time

Page 11: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Lunar SearchesMinimal atmosphere, 500 Myears of samplingAnalyse samples taken on Apollo 11,12 and 14 with a SQUID

Sample no.

pers

iste

nt c

urre

nt /

arb

Acknowledgements: We thank Neil A. Armstrong, Edwin E. Aldrin, Michael Collins…

Page 12: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Cosmic Ray Searches

Macro at Gran Sasso Lab. βFlux

upp

er li

mit

(cm

-2s-

1 sr-

1 )10

-16

10-1

5

Macro

Parker limit

Cabrera

Liquid scintillators, streamer tubes, plastic track detectors over 76 x 12 x 9 m3

Page 13: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Recent and Current Accelerator Searches

HERA ep

Tevatron Detector material charge > 1 DMmass < 800 GeVpp->γγmass < 1.5 TeVcharge > 1DM

Highly ionising tracks mass < 45 GeV0.2 < charge < 2DMe+e- -> γγγmass < 580 GeV0.2 < charge <2DM

LEP e+e-

Detector material,Highly ionising tracks 1 < charge < 6 DMmass < 150 GeV

Page 14: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

First search in ep at =300 GeVSensitive to 150 GeV mass QED coupling for DiracMonopole gD

αg=gD2/4π =34

αem=1/137

Monopoles at HERA

p

s

m

m

e e’

αg

αem

αg

Processes predicted but not rate103 greater ionisation energy loss rate than mip

Page 15: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Magnetic Monopoles at H1

Monopoles with < 1 Dirac charge enter the detector.

Monopoles with > 1 Dirac charge trapped in the beam pipe.

Look for monopole with deep-inelastic probeSensitive to masses < 150 GeV

g

m m

Page 16: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Monopoles in the H1 Beam pipe Sensitive to 1 DM ≤ g ≤ 6 DM Bind to Al nucleus dipole moment and only released by melting (Milton et al.)Take 60cm section of H1 beam-pipe around interaction zone.Used 1994-1997 : lumi=60pb-1

Cut into 14 strips and 42 smaller samplesand pass through a SQUID.

Page 17: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

SQUIDs as Monopole Detectors

1 DMvs

B (Φ/Α)

• Superconducting Quantum Interference Device

• Induce current on sc pick-up coils.• Measure B-field on sc loop with small breaks (SQUID) –

quantum mechanical tunnelling of e- pairs allows flux jumps (fluxons) (1 fluxon =1/2 µ0g).

• Measured current across SQUID modulates with period of a fluxon.

Page 18: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Southampton SQUID• DC SQUID (2G mod. 581) at Southampton

Oceanography Centre.• Sample sizes up to 1m long and 5cm radius.• 1/20th fluxon precision.

Page 19: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

CalibrationUse solenoids with varying currents to study SQUID response

90 DM

10 DM

1.2 DM

i /ar

b

x 10

-1x

10-2

solenoidsc loop

i

B

position /cm

Page 20: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Calibration checkMonopole signal survives after strip traversal

stripi Solenoid ( = 1 gd)

Page 21: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Beam pipe measurementsInduced current from strips

Dirac Monopole

Cur

rent

Strip numberNo candidates found

Page 22: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

‘Efficiency’ of beam pipe

Use γγ−> mm (comphep) model

Rising acceptance with charge

Page 23: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Cross-section upper limits

Page 24: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Comparison with other experiments

Best limit from moon-rock

Page 25: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Upper limit for 6gd monopoles

Page 26: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Hunt for massive stable charged particles

Upper limit on cross-section for heavy stable charged particles 0.19 nb

Sensitive to monopoles < 1 DM

H1

Page 27: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Look for parabolic trajectoriesElectric charge z= z0 + s tan θMagnetic charge z= z0 + s tan θ + s2 C

Tassoe+e- s1/2=35 GeV

zSensitive < 1g

s

Page 28: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Next StepsMoedal Experiment at LHC Next to LHCB Detector

Plastic Track Detectors 7 TeV Mass SensitivityATLAS, CMS Searches Possible

Page 29: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Summary and OutlookMagnetic monopoles play a fundamental role in modern physics theories.

No evidence from cosmic ray and high energy physics experiments.

Next energy window opened by the LHCDay 1 search possible

Page 30: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Magnetic Monopoles Already Exist !

F=q(E + v x B) + g(B – 1/c2 (v x E) )tEjB

tBE

B

E

∂∂

+=×∇

∂∂

−=×∇

=⋅∇

=⋅∇

ˆˆˆ

ˆˆ

ˆ

000

0

µεµ

ερ

-µ0jm

µ0ρm

Duality transformation gives magnetic monopoles.

By convention we set ρm=0

E’ = E cos α + c B sin αcB’ = cB cos α − E sin αcq’ = cq cos α + g sin αg’ = g cos α − cq sin α

Look for particles withdifferent electric/magneticcharge than observed.

Page 31: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Confinement of Quarks (I)Meissner effect expels magnetic field via electron-pair condensation

B

conductor

B

conductor

B

conductor

B

e-e-

e-e-e-e-

e-e-e-e-e-e-

e-e- e-e-m m

Monopoles in sc connected by flux tube

Page 32: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

m

m

m

m

m

mm

m

mm

Confinement of Quarks (II)Chromo-magnetic monopoles form QCD ground state

quarks confined in flux lines through dualMeissner effect (‘t Hooft, 1985)

γq q

Search for monopoles in hadrons with electromagnetic probe

Page 33: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

More Calibration

Linear SQUID response

Page 34: David Milstead The University of Liverpool• T’hooft/Polyakov (1974) – Breaking of `simple’ symmetry group (eg SU(5), SO(10)) into U(1) sub-component leads to Dirac Monopole

Results: Cabrera revisited

position /m

1 DMi /arb

No repeatable signal !