We're sorry but this page doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue.
Feedback

The Search for Fractional Electric Charge

00:00

Formal Metadata

Title
The Search for Fractional Electric Charge
Title of Series
Number of Parts
340
Author
License
CC Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives 4.0 International:
You are free to use, copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in unchanged form for any legal and non-commercial purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Identifiers
Publisher
Release Date
Language

Content Metadata

Subject Area
Genre
Abstract
“I am an experimenter, I am competent in mathematics, but I am not a deep theorist, so I have to stay away from all experiments that are hard to analyze”, Martin Perl told his audience in Lindau in this only lecture he ever gave there. This was an understatement, of course. After a bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering, Perl had been trained as a physicist in the department of Isidor Isaac Rabi (NP in Physics 1944) at Columbia University in New York, where theory and practice met and merged at such a top level that it would breed many future Nobel Laureates. Without a deep theoretical understanding of particle physics and without detailed calculations of nuclear decay processes, Perl wouldn’t have been able to devise and conduct the experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), which in the mid-1970s led to the discovery of the tau lepton. It is 3.500 times heavier than the electron and 17 times heavier than the muon and turned out to be the first member of the last family of the standard model. For its discovery Perl was awarded with the Nobel Prize in Physics 1995 „for pioneering experimental contributions to lepton physics“. He shared it with Frederick Reines who had discovered the electron neutrino in 1956 together with Clyde Cowan. The tau neutrino was only discovered in 2000 by the DONUT collaboration group at Fermilab. In this lecture, Martin Perl does not talk about the three different families of elementary particles, however, but introduces the experimental work, which he had „started about four years ago“, with the objective of solving „the old problem of the existence of fractional charge in isolated particles“. In his famous oil drop experiment in 1909, Robert Millikan (Nobel Prize in Physics 1923) had proven the existence and first measured the magnitude of the elementary electric charge that is carried by a single electron or proton. Fractions of this elementary charge only occur in quarks, the building blocks of protons and neutrons, which carry either two thirds or one third of it. Yet isolated quarks have never been observed. Quasiparticles on the other hand, with whose formation Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize in Physics 1998) could explain the fractional quantum Hall effect, are fractionally-charged, but no elementary particles. The search for fractionally charged particles needs not necessarily be conducted in accelerators. If they exist, one should be able to identify them with the same method “as used about 90 years ago by Millikan brought up to date by modern technology”, says Perl. He depicts his experimental set-up, which calls for studying bulk material “which has come to us from 10 billion years ago, as unhandled as possible, so the things to look in are meteorites and rocks on the earth’s surface that have been formed early”. To succeed in doing so, one has to grind up these materials and get them into oil in a colloidal suspension - a challenge that according to Perl is more difficult than studying string theory: “All physicists should be humble, because chemistry is harder than physics”. Another line of research, which Perl pursued with the modernized Millikan experiment was the quest for very massive particles. His intention was to identify falling drops, which have a higher velocity because they contain very massive particles. He admits that this idea may sound too simple to be taken seriously by his peers, but convincingly explains why he find its important to share it with young researchers it Lindau: “Ideas come out of working for the experimenter. This idea, which is so obvious, never came to me before doing the more complicated fractional charge search.” Joachim Pietzsch
Ammunition
Meeting/Interview
Particle physicsLaserschweißenLeptonRRS DiscoveryMeeting/Interview
LeptonVideoHot workingMeeting/Interview
BloomeryHot workingTauMeasurementMeeting/Interview
RRS DiscoveryYearElementary particleHot workingLadungstrennungOptischer SchalterMeeting/Interview
Color chargeApparent magnitudeElementary particleCoulomb's lawMeeting/Interview
Elementary particleColor chargeMeeting/Interview
BloomeryGemstoneQuarkColor chargeMesonMeeting/Interview
Particle physicsRRS DiscoveryViscosityQuarkMeeting/Interview
Particle physicsQuarkClassical mechanicsMeeting/Interview
LeptonRRS DiscoveryQuarkQuantumSpare partMeeting/Interview
LeptonRRS DiscoveryCondensed matter physicsColor chargeAccelerationCosmic rayMeeting/Interview
LeptonYearSolar SystemUniverseElementary particleMeeting/Interview
Particle physicsLeptonRRS DiscoveryRelative datingElementary particleYearRestkernMeeting/Interview
LeptonVakuumphysikRegentropfenMetalMeeting/Interview
Dynamische LichtstreuungTurningTrajectoryTelevision setRegentropfenMeeting/Interview
Direct currentRegentropfenFahrgeschwindigkeitMetreMeeting/Interview
BloomeryMagnetKlemmverbindungElementary particleFahrgeschwindigkeitActive laser mediumAccelerationRoll formingAerodynamicsMeeting/Interview
MassColor chargeRegentropfenMeeting/Interview
LeptonClothing sizesRegentropfenMeasurementColor chargeAmplitudeMeeting/Interview
Clothing sizesLadungstrennungMeeting/Interview
Elementary particleMeeting/Interview
MassMeeting/Interview
RRS DiscoveryYearWeatherMeeting/Interview
RRS DiscoveryLeptonClothing sizesBloomeryGemstoneMaterialDampfbügeleisenKilogramMeeting/Interview
DampfbügeleisenMeltingMeeting/Interview
GentlemanRegentropfenCosmic microwave background radiationMeeting/Interview
Particle physicsPhysicistMeeting/Interview
Particle physicsLeptonString theoryMeeting/Interview
LeptonReines, FrederickParticle physicsMonthMeeting/Interview
LeptonRRS DiscoveryMassElementary particleGround effect vehiclePhysicistKilogramMeeting/Interview
LeptonGround effect vehicleMachineCooper (profession)CERNMeeting/Interview
BloomeryScale (map)Ground effect vehicleKilogramMeasurementYearMassMeeting/Interview
WirePosamentenmacherMassRegentropfenGround effect vehicleKopfstützeMeeting/Interview
Particle physicsRRS DiscoveryMassElementary particleRegentropfenMeeting/Interview
FahrgeschwindigkeitKlemmverbindungElementary particleMeeting/Interview
Particle physicsLeptonElectrical resistivity tomographyMoonMassRegentropfenElementary particleMeeting/Interview
LeptonArray data structureBloomeryRegentropfenElementary particleFinger protocolMeasurementMeeting/Interview
Clothing sizesBoeing 777String theoryElementary particleMeeting/Interview
RRS DiscoveryParticle physicsKilogramHose couplingMeeting/Interview
RRS DiscoveryParticle physicsFire apparatusMeeting/Interview
Clothing sizesParticle physicsRRS DiscoveryEveningVideoMachineMeeting/Interview
RRS DiscoveryFire apparatusRegentropfenHot workingMeeting/Interview
ElbeRegentropfenMeasurementMeeting/Interview
LeptonTimerMaterialVideoElectric power distributionNanotechnologyMeeting/Interview
Transcript: English(auto-generated)
It's a great pleasure to be here. I've learned a great deal from my colleagues. And one of the things which I'm sure many of you have seen is that everybody is so different. Different styles, different personalities, different ways of doing science, doing physics. And so before I talk about this experiment
that we're working on now, you should understand what my personality is and my interests are. I was trained as a chemical engineer and worked as a chemical engineer for a while before I went into physics. I'm an experimenter. I'm competent in mathematics and conventional theory.
I can do quantum mechanics and Feynman diagrams, those sorts of things, statistical mechanics. But I'm not a deep theorist. And so I have to stay away from all those things. I don't like to do experiments which involve complicated theory or hard to analyze, either deep theory or various sorts.
I like to work on things which have interesting technology, interesting apparatus, and for which I can do the interpretation myself. I also always like to work in two directions, two lines of research at the same time. One, a conventional line of research, day-to-day work.
And one, a speculative line of research. The speculative is also more fun, but most speculative work doesn't work out. The advantage of all of this at the same time being in conventional work is that you're kept close to reality. You're kept close to having to make a careful, ordinary measurement. So I try to do both. And what happened with the tau was that started out
as speculative research. And I still work on that to some extent, but that's now actually very conventional research. So I started about four years ago on an old problem, which is a question of the existence of fractional electric charge in isolated particles.
You find particles all by themselves. About 100 years ago, the electron was discovered. And then through the work of Millikan and others, its charge was well established. 1.6 times 10 to the minus 19th coulombs by about 1910 or 15. Since then, we have discovered many more particles
the proton, the neutron, mesons, the muons, neutrinos, the tau eventually. And all these particles have either zeroed charge or a charge equal in magnitude for the charge of the electron of either sign. And then some of the more excited elementary particles have two or three times the charge.
But they're always integers as long as they're particles that can be isolated. So it's an old question as to whether there are any other kind of particles around. And I must tell you that there's no confirmed evidence for fractional electric charged particles which can be isolated.
And conventional theory has built this in. Now, the only exception, but it's not one which falls within what we're looking for, is, of course, the quarks. Quarks, which make up mesons and nucleons, are given 2 thirds or 1 third of the charge on the electron.
But it's believed, again, that you can never get one quark out by itself. For example, in a pi meson, one has a quark and an anti-quark. And they're always stuck together, it is believed. You can never pull them apart. It's never been found.
Now, therefore, this is a speculative field. When you go into something speculative, there are two things you should have. You should have a clear idea of what you're looking for. And secondly, you should have a good way to do it. I'll say a little bit about what we're looking for and then how we do it.
First of all, maybe it's not true that quarks are always bound together. Maybe once in a while you can find a free quark. And it would be such a thing as though when Newtonian mechanics went into, enlarged to special relativity, that is, the present theory of quarks,
which is called quantum chromodynamics, would just be part of a more general theory. You could, in such a speculation of work, you must not violate what's well known. OK, so it could be a quark. Another possibility is that pairs of quarks may be isolatable for reasons I won't go into. It could be a lepton, like the muon, the electron or a tau,
but with half a charge or pi times the charge. Any of these things are possible. Now, there are many different ways to look for such fractional things. And many people have looked. You could use an accelerator. You could look in cosmic rays. The way we've chosen is to look in bulk matter.
And in our case, these fractionally charged particles would have to come from the early universe. They would have to have been made 10 billion years ago, somehow come through the things I barely understand, inflation and so forth, gotten into the stars,
out of supernovas, and come into our solar system. Well, that's not so unexpected, as you might say. After all, we're here because of that. All but the brightest nuclei were made that way. The iron, the uranium, all the other things we depend upon came that route. So maybe a fractionally charged particle came that route.
OK, that's what we're looking for. Now, the method is very simple. It's the same method used 90 years ago by Millikan, but brought up to date by modern technology. We make small liquid drops, and we use oil. And they're about 10 or 8 microns in diameter.
And they fall through air. It must be in air. It's not in vacuum. And we have two metal plates with a hole in them. And then, as you see in the diagram, we make drops which fall through the hole. We make the drops the way inkjet technology works, but we make smaller drops. And that's been interesting learning how to do that. The big advantage we have over Millikan, of course,
is electronics. What we do is the drop is falling. Over here, we have a light source, which strobes every tenth of a second. And here, we have a modern television camera. It's called the CCD camera, digitized face. And it follows the trajectory.
That's fed, of course, to a computer. We use fairly high speed, but conventional PCs. And in the computer, we calculate the velocity of the drop. Now, here's a picture of it. It's in an E field. And we also, every tenth of a second, change the direction of the E field.
As the drop is falling, the drops fall slowly with a few millimeters a second. And this is the only equation. And we use Stokes' Law, which I guess is 150 years old. And Stokes' Law says that for small particles falling through a medium with some viscosity, such as air, you get actually Aristotle's form of dynamics.
The velocity is proportional to the force, not the acceleration. And the equation is simple. When the electric field is up, when the electric field helps gravity, we get one kind of terminal velocity. When the electric field opposes gravity, we get the other. As it's falling, we measure it.
We change the field several times. And we're able to measure the mass and the charge of the drop. We do it for every drop. And the first experiment, which was done on oil, and was not successful, we didn't find anything. But we did publish it, because it's important to publish
the results of things that fail, as well as things that succeed. And this is sort of the crucial data. Along here, we have plotted the amount of charge in terms of units of the electron charge that we find in the drops. And we did about 6 million drops, about a drop every second.
And what you see are peaks at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. And what we're looking for is something in between, something here or in here, fractional electric charge. Now, what we do is we then superimpose all those valleys so it's easier for you to see it,
and for us to analyze it. And this is what it looks like when we superimpose it. And this has been published in the Physical Review. And we find nothing in here, no fractionally charged particles in this amount of oil, which was about a milligram. Now, this was our first experiment.
It works pretty well. We're now trying to improve things. We can now run maybe 10 to 100 times faster. That induces other inter-dimensional electronic things, which we're doing, and so forth. Now, we didn't find any fractional charge, but I didn't expect to find any, because if you have an atom or a molecule with fractional charge in it,
it changes the chemistry of the atom or molecule. Particularly, it changes the electronegativity. Therefore, you should not look in materials which have been refined. Our oil is actually synthetic silicone oil, particularly bad to look in.
Where should you look? You should look in those materials which have come to us from 10 billion years ago as unhandled as possible. So the things to look in are meteorites, rocks on the Earth's surface, which were formed early and have not in the weather an outer portion, but an inner portion, and that's where we're
really interested in looking. Now, so far, our experiment is not the most sensitive. There are other ways to do this. There's some beautiful experiments by Marinelli and Morpurgo, a slightly different method, and Smith. Some people looked at three or four milligrams of material. We just looked at one.
Now, our favorite material is iron. I believe iron's a very bad place to look, and this is why. Iron has, first of all, refined itself in the blast furnace, and in molten iron, I think any fractional charge will drift out to the walls of the blast furnace, but where does iron come from? It comes from iron ore, which itself has been accumulated
in a very complicated geochemical process, and iron with a fractional charge in it would probably not end up in that iron mine. So, I don't think iron's good. Niobium has been done for strange reasons, mostly because a very famous man now dead, Fairbank, thought he found fractional charge in niobium. It's doubtful that he's right on that.
So, what we're trying to do now is, first of all, do a lot more oil, because that's good practice. If you found anything in oil, I'd be very suspicious. So, that sort of is testing the background of the experiment. There are various things that can happen. Drops can fall together that have to be done, but the things we want to do, meteorites, special rocks,
and that has got us into an area, and all physicists should be humble, because chemistry is harder than physics, and I not only said that because I was a chemical engineer. To do this, we have to grind up these various things and get them into oil in a colloidal suspension,
and I must tell you, studying, understanding colloidal suspensions, not so much their thermodynamics, but how to do them in this complicated situation is a lot harder than studying string theory, neither which I've studied. I won't take time to study string theory, but we are trying to understand this.
Now, I'm hurrying, because out of this work, which is in its midst, came another idea, which I only got a few months ago, and I'm just writing a physical review letter about it, which I'm afraid maybe is so simple that we'll not get accepted, but it doesn't matter. I can tell you here, and then people will start knowing about it.
Okay, and it has to do with high-energy physics. You can use these falling drops, forget about their electric charge, to look for very massive particles, and here I have to go off a little bit into the way the high-energy physicists talk about mass.
Okay, we usually talk about mass, not in grams or kilograms, but in terms of GeV over C squared. The heaviest known particle has about 90 GeV over C squared. Remember, the proton is about one GeV over C squared. Now, in the Large Hadron Collider, the beautiful machine being now built at CERN
through European cooperation, or cooperation from the US, will get us up to maybe 5,000 GeV over C squared, because it's a 10,000 GeV machine. But for many years, the high-energy world has been full of speculations that something happens
at 10 to the 16th, 10 to the 18th GeV over C. It's a so-called unification scale. That's an enormous energy, and not reachable by present techniques, though I'm a tremendous optimist, and who knows what will be happening 500 years from now. Now, let's go between high-energy units and ordinary units.
One GeV over C squared, which is about the mass of a proton, is 10 to the minus 24 gram. Now, our drops have a mass of about five times 10 to the minus 10th grams, and we can control that very well. We can make smaller drops larger drops. Take the mass of our drops and put them in GeV.
So the mass of our drops, remember, this is the rest mass, there's nothing to do with their velocity, is about three times 10 to the 14th GeV, and these drops are therefore lighter than some of the very massive particles that people have speculated about.
Now, then, and it really follows, I'm almost ashamed to talk about this. It's so straightforward. So we make a lot of these drops, and we can make them very uniform. So the mass is, again, the same, the same, the same, to about a few percent. Suppose one of them, in this line as we're making them,
has this very heavy particle end with that little red thing in there. Then that will have a higher velocity of four terminal velocity than the other drops, and it will stand out. So, in fact, what we're just starting out to do now, it doesn't even require modifying the apparatus,
is to look for the following. We make a lot of drops. Again, we're doing it, and this will begin to do with a colloidal solution, and right here you see this enormous peak, which will have 10 to the sixth, 10 to the seventh, 10 to the eighth drops in it. If one of those drops has a very heavy particle in it,
its mass will be quite different. So the simple plan is to just measure drop after drop, and we'll use actually somewhat bigger drops, get more volume, and look for very massive particles. One, of course they have to exist.
If they don't exist, that's hopeless. Two, they have to be stable. Nobody, I think everybody who does high-energy theory agrees that there are such heavy particles, but in most cases, everyone also thinks they're unstable. They also don't like them, and they also try to get rid of them. But in fact, though I refuse to study string theory,
it is true that string theory also can predict some of these, which are also fractionally charged, so they are stable maybe. Okay, so one, these particles have to exist. Two, they have to be stable. And three, they have to be sufficiently abundant so that in a couple years, one can find them.
And we can look through different kinds of matter about a tenth of a gram of matter by this method. So there has to be at least one, a few of them. Now, I don't believe that finding one is of any use. What you have to do in science, in this kind of science is find a lot of them, 10, 20, 30.
I don't intend to try to save them or anything at this point, though I've had endless discussions how you might, because what one would do in this kind of very speculative work, suppose the fortunate, the gods of fortune shine upon us, and we do see the second peak, then we publish it, going through the referee system,
and what we have done is design an apparatus which is very easy to copy. It just uses ordinary machine shop, and most of our components are commercial, easily bought from computer people, video frame grabber people, and so forth. So that if we are lucky enough to see that second peak,
maybe we'll publish it if the referees agree, and then other people, and we always say exactly how we build the apparatus, we'll then try it. And it's possible that we could find it, or it's possible we could have made a mistake in some subtle way, two drops united, I don't know, there are many odds and ends on this thing.
Anyway, that's where our research stands in this area. We are continuing with the fractional charge work and starting this work, which almost uses the same apparatus. Now, my main point in telling you about this for the young people is that ideas come out of working for the experimenter.
This idea, which is so obvious, never came to me until we were doing the more complicated fractional charge search, and it's easier to make big drops than small drops, and I kept thinking to myself, why isn't there some way to use the big drops? The small drops are better for charge measurement. And it was just working with that that this idea occurred.
So I think one of the most important thing for the experimenters in science is you must work at it, and that's where it stands. Thank you.