Showing posts with label particle physics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label particle physics. Show all posts

Geometric model of particles: a didactical approach

About ten years ago Giovanni Guido proposed me a new model to describe particles. Under certain aspects it remembers to me a string model: simplifying as much as possible, Giovanni's model supposes the presence of small quantum oscillators connected to each other by lines that run along a space-time lattice; these lines form geometric figures, golden triangles to be precise, which constitute the geometric structure of particles, elementary and otherwise. I have never had the opportunity to actively work on the model: the commitments in outreach with INAF have always been somehow a priority due to the type of contract that, in some way, pushes me to give priority to these aspects. However, despite everything, we have used his vision to describe a universe that is in a certain sense cyclical that you can find in the following two articles: The Universe at Lattice-Fields and Variational Principle in an Expanding Universe.
Working on Guido's particle model, however, has always been a worry of mine, so a couple of years ago I proposed to him to try to develop a didactic formulation of the model that could be used to bring elementary particles not only to university, but also to high school. From that idea, although my contributions to the writing were minimal, a triptych of articles came out, of which you can find the links below, and which received a particular review that made me very happy:
The Authors propose a didactic model representative of the particles described of the Standard Model. In this approach, particles result to be geometric forms corresponding to geometric structures of coupled quantum oscillators. An in-depth phenomenology of particles surfaces and this seems fully compatible with that of the Standard Model. Consequently, it is possible to calculate the mass of Higgs's Boson and the mass of the pair "muon and muonic neutrino" in "geometrical" sense. Via this geometric approach, it seems also possible to solve crucial aspects of the Standard Model. as the neutrinos’ oscillations and the intrinsic chirality of the neutrino and antineutrino. The paper is very interesting and deserves immediate publication in JHEPGC.
I don't consider the work finished and indeed I would like to be able to bring these ideas into practice in schools. For now I'm happy to share this happiness here on the blog.
The Geometric Model of Particles: An Original Didactic about Standard Model -> The Quarks | Nucleons and K-Mesons | Leptons and Bosons

A laser particle accelerator

Particle accelerators are usually associated with large national facilities. Because photons are able to impart momentum to electrons, there are also efforts to develop laser-based particle accelerators. Sapra et al. developed an integrated particle accelerator using photonic inverse design methods to optimize the interaction between the light and the electrons. They show that an additional kick of around 0.9 kilo–electron volts (keV) can be given to a bunch of 80-keV electrons along just 30 micrometers of a specially designed channel. Such miniaturized dielectric laser accelerators could open up particle physics to a number of scientific disciplines.
Sapra, N. V., Yang, K. Y., Vercruysse, D., Leedle, K. J., Black, D. S., England, R. J., ... & Byer, R. L. (2020). On-chip integrated laser-driven particle accelerator. Science, 367(6473), 79-83. doi:10.1126/science.aay5734

The other side of the matter

We know that exist a particular type of matter: the antimatter. Antimatter is composed by antiparticles. An antiparticle has the same mass as the corresponding particle but has opposite charge. And luckily for us antimatter is substantialy absent from our universe: indeed the interaction between matter and antimatter leads to the annihilation process, with the disappearance of particle and antiparticle and energy production. So, if in the universe there were the same amount of matter and antimatter, it would be filled exclusively with radiation. For this reason it is particularly interesting understand where this asymmetry originates: we know that would be a symmetry violation in some place and time of the universe, and the T2K experiment in Japan tested neutrinos' oscillations, in particular the oscillation from muonic to electronic neutrino. The results of ten years of data say that 90 neutrinos and only 15 antineutrinos were caught oscillating from muonic to electronic: different numbers mean violated symmetry.
The most interesting detail is that the experimental result doesn't exclude an interesting idea about an anti-universe that exists at the other side of the Big Bang.
Abe, K., Akutsu, R., Ali, A., Alt, C., Andreopoulos, C., Anthony, L., ... & Ashida, Y. (2020). Constraint on the Matter-Antimatter Symmetry-Violating Phase in Neutrino Oscillations. Nature volume 580, pages 339–344. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2177-0
Boyle, L., Finn, K., & Turok, N. (2018). C P T-Symmetric Universe. Physical review letters, 121(25), 251301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.251301

The light limit of the neutrino

Neutrinos are the most light particles in the universe, but we don't know your mass. In the current state of the research, the only thing that we can hope to do is find upper and lower limits. And in the previous weeks we have some interesting news about the upper limit.
In april Physics Review Letters published a paper in which a team of researcher have compared constraints from physically motivated neutrino mass models (i.e., ones respecting oscillation experiments) to those from models using standard cosmological approximations. They founded an upper limit about $0.26 \, eV$, almost 2 million times lighter than an electron.
Loureiro, A., Cuceu, A., Abdalla, F. B., Moraes, B., Whiteway, L., McLeod, M., ... & Rollins, R. P. (2019). Upper Bound of Neutrino Masses from Combined Cosmological Observations and Particle Physics Experiments. Physical review letters, 123(8), 081301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.081301 (arXiv
In the meanwhile, just ten days ago, the KATRIN's team (KATRIN, Karlsruhe Trtitium Neutrino experiment) announced the new experimental upper limit: $1.1 \, eV$.
Aker, M., Altenmüller, K., Arenz, M., Babutzka, M., Barrett, J., Bauer, S., ... & Besserer, U. (2019). An improved upper limit on the neutrino mass from a direct kinematic method by KATRIN. arXiv:1909.06048.
The research of neutrino mass becomes more and more interesting: if the study of theoretical models combined with astronomical data gives us an idea of the range to look for, experiments will say the last word.
The hunt to the neutrino is still open!

Four all new exotic particles

LHCb has recently observed four new exotic-like particles in the decay of the $B^+$:
he properties of these structures are consistent with their interpretation as four-quark particles, which are considered as "exotic", (hence the "exotic-like" name in the title), although the details of the four quark $c{\bar c}s{\bar s}$ binding mechanism is still under discussion.
Read also paper 1 and paper 2

A brief history of neutrinos' oscillations

I just write a more detailed post about the model behind neutrino's oscillations. Here I would simply recall that the idea was proposed by Bruno Pontecorvo in 1957 and developed by Ziro Maki, Masami Nakagawa e Shoichi Sakata in 1962. Today I try to summarize the experimental way.

Hints of physics behind standard model?

The LHCb collaboration is studying the decay of mesons $B$ in order to find some violations in standard model rules. In particular LHCb has measured a particular ratio, named $R (D^*)$, between two decay modes of $\overline{B}^0$ and they find a violation from the standard model prediction that is compatible with other similar measures:
In the SM all charged leptons, such as taus ($\tau$) or muons ($\mu$), interact in an identical fashion (or, in physicists' language, have the same "couplings"). This property is called "lepton universality". However, differences in mass between the leptons must be accounted for, and affect decays involving these particles. The $\tau$ lepton is much heavier than the $\mu$ lepton and therefore the SM prediction for the ratio $R(D^*)$ is substantially smaller than 1. This ratio is considered to be precisely calculable thanks to the cancellation of uncertainties associated with the $B$ to $D^*$ meson transition.
But there is another hint of new physics. At the end of July Nature Physics published a new paper from the LHCb collaboration about the possible existence of a new particle:
The LHCb collaboration published in Nature Physics a paper based on run 1 data which reports the determination of the parameter $|V_{ub}|$ describing the transition of a $b$ quark to a $u$ quark. This measurement was made by studying a particular decay of the $\Lambda_b^0$ baryon. Other measurements of $|V_{ub}|$ by previous experiments had returned two sets of inconsistent results, depending on which method was used to determine the parameter. Theorists had suggested that this discrepancy could be explained by the presence a new particle contributing to the decay process, which affected the result differently, depending on the measurement method. Today's result from LHCb removes the need for this new particle, while the puzzle of why the original sets of measurements do not agree persists.
where $|V_{ub}|$ is connected to the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix.

Quarks of power

about @LHCbExperiment #pentaquark discovery
Once upon a time, there was a controversy in particle physics. There were some physicists who denied the existence of structures more elementary than hadrons, and searched for a self-consistent interpretation wherein all hadron states, stable or resonant, were equally elementary. Others, appalled by the teeming democracy of hadrons, insisted on the existence of a small number of fundamental constituents and a simple underlying force law. In terms of these more fundamental things, hadron spectroscopy should be qualitatively described and essentially understood just as are atomic and nuclear physics.(11)
The need of the partons
When we descrive the collisions between particles, we calculate the cross section, the area of the distribution of the collisions' products. The mathematical object used to calculate the cross section are the structure functions, that mathematically describes the inner structure of the particle. In 1969 studying the deep inelastic scattering J. D. Bjorken(4, 18), in order to explain the experimental results, proposed a particular property for the hadronic structure function in the cross section called scaling. In the same year Richard Feynman(5, 18) suggested the necessity to adopt a new description of hadrons: they had to be made by smaller components, more elementary than the hadrons themselves. These components are called partons.
The Feynman's thesys was immediatly verified by Bjorken and Paschos(6, 7, 18), in this way starting a great discussion about the parton models, described in the paper by De Rújula, Georgi and Glashow quoted at the beginning of the post(11) (an interesting review of the parton model and its story is in Greenberg(18)).
Probably the most strong motivation to adopt the parton model to describe hadrons is the great production of particles in the ring particles accelerators(5). So, theoretical physicists produced a lot of model, but the most succesfull is the quarks model, developed by Murray Gell-Mann(1) and Georg Zweig(2, 3), that introduced a new quantum number, the flavor. The first formulation involved three type of quarks (and so three flavors): up, down and strange. To this first set of elementary particles in 1970 the quark charm was added by Glashow, Iliopulos and Maiani(8) and finally in 1973 Kobayashi and Maskawa(9) completed the family with the two last quark, top and bottom, named by Harari(10) in 1975.
Three quarks for Muster Mark!
Sure he has not got much of a bark
And sure any he has it's all beside the mark.
from Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce

The chirality at the beginning of the universe

A new clue about the #quarkgluonplasma from @RHIC_STAR at @BrookhavenLab
Within the particles that constitute atomic nuclei, protons and neutrons, there are the quarks, the elementary particles with fractional charges, linked to each other thanks to the gluons, bosons that carry the nuclear interaction. Thanks to the gluons it is impossible to observe, at present, free quarks, but it is expected that in the very first stage of the universe, matter was in a state called quark-gluon plasma. Thanks to the observation of so-called quark jets we know, indirectly, that the interior of the accelerators RHIC and LHC, in particular in heavy ion collisions, this kind of plasmas were created and, according to the theory, in the presence of axial anomalies, dued by the presence of strong electromagnetic fields, we can create two special effects: the Chiral Magnetic Effect (CME) and the Chiral Separation Effect (CSE).
The CME is the phenomenon of electric charge separation along the axis of the applied magnetic field in the presence of fluctuating topological charge.
The Chiral Separation Effect (CSE) refers to the separation of chiral charge along the axis of external magnetic field at finite density of vector charge (e.g. at finite baryon number density)(5)
These two effects are generated by the topology of the system: indeed, within the theory(1, 2, 3) is contemplated the existence of some numbers (called topological invariants, or winding number(4)) that, while not associated with an observable, still generate effects physically relevant because of their link with the fundamental symmetries of the system.

The fifth shot of a tau neutrino

http://t.co/urnbKwoiSY by @ulaulaman about #neutrino #tau #Opera #particlephysics
From the press release:
The OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus) international experiment at the National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN) Gran Sasso Laboratory (Italy) has detected the fifth occurrence of a tau neutrino. The neutrino started its flight at CERN as muon neutrino and, after traveling 730 km through the Earth, it arrived at Gran Sasso Laboratories showing up as a tau neutrino. This important result was announced yesterday during a seminar held at the Gran Sasso Laboratories. According to the Spokesperson of the international research team, Giovanni De Lellis, from Federico II University and INFN in Naples, "The detection of a fifth tau neutrino is extremely important: the direct observation of the transition from muon to tau neutrinos has now achieved for the first time the 5 sigma statistical precision, the usual particle physics threshold for a discovery. We can thus definitely report the discovery of the appearance of tau neutrinos in a muon neutrino beam." The detection of tau neutrinos from the oscillation of muon neutrinos was the motivation of the OPERA project, designed in the late nineties. "This task is extremely difficult due to two conflicting requirements: a huge, massive detector and a micrometric accuracy. The challenge is to bring to the thousands ton scale a detector based on the nuclear emulsion technology, a photographic technique unique in ensuring the required accuracy", De Lellis says.
The tau neutrino was discovered in july 2000 by DONUT collaboration (arXiv). It is produced in the tau decay, where tau is a lepton, an elementary particle with a negative electric charge and spin 1/2 and with a mass of 1776.82 ± 0.16 MeV: with a great simplification we can say that tau is an electron with a very big mass!
Now, first of all I share the paper about the fourth observation:

Carlo Rubbia and the discoveries of the weak bosons

http://t.co/KGVNarwZMG by @ulaulaman about #CarloRubbia #NobelPrize #physics #particlephysics
Flattr this
On that day 30 years ago, I was almost certainly at school. Physics still was not my passion. Of course I started very well: when the teacher asked what is the space, I thought immediately to the universe, but the question was not referring to that "space", but in another, the geometric. But it is not about those memories that I have to indulge, but on a particular photo, in which Carlo Rubbia and Simon van der Meer, with two goblets, presumably of wine in hand, are celebrating the announcement of the Nobel Prize for Physics
for their decisive contributions to the large project, which led to the discovery of the field particles W and Z, communicators of weak interaction
The story of this Nobel, however, began eight years earlier, in 1976. In that year, in fact, SPS, the Super Proton Synchrotron, begins to operate at CERN, originally designed to accelerate particles up to an energy of 300 GeV.
The same year David Cline, Carlo Rubbia and Peter McIntyre proposed transforming the SPS into a proton-antiproton collider, with proton and antiproton beams counter-rotating in the same beam pipe to collide head-on. This would yield centre-of-mass energies in the 500-700 GeV range(1).
On the other hand antiprotons must be somehow collected. The corresponding beam was then
(...) stochastically cooled in the antiproton accumulator at 3.5 GeV, and this is where the expertise of Simon Van der Meer and coworkers played a decisive role(1).

CERN's 60th Birthday

http://t.co/zU9b7V4idL by @ulaulaman about #CERN60
The day to celebrate CERN's birthday is arrived:
The convention establishing CERN was ratified on 29 September 1954 by 12 countries in Western Europe. The acronym CERN originally stood in French for Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (European Council for Nuclear Research), which was a provisional council for setting up the laboratory, established by 12 European governments in 1952. The acronym was retained for the new laboratory after the provisional council was dissolved, even though the name changed to the current Organisation Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire (European Organization for Nuclear Research) in 1954.
The most recent discovery at the laboratories is the Higgs boson (or a particle that seems it), but there are some others successes in the CERN's history:

1973: The discovery of neutral currents in the Gargamelle bubble chamber;
1983: The discovery of W and Z bosons in the UA1 and UA2 experiments;
1989: The determination of the number of light neutrino families at the Large Electron–Positron Collider (LEP) operating on the Z boson peak;
1995: The first creation of antihydrogen atoms in the PS210 experiment;
1999: The discovery of direct CP violation in the NA48 experiment;
2010: The isolation of 38 atoms of antihydrogen;
2011: Maintaining antihydrogen for over 15 minutes;

There are two Nobel Prizes directly connected to the CERN:

1984: to Carlo Rubbia and Simon Van der Meer for
their decisive contributions to the large project which led to the discovery of the field particles W and Z, communicators of the weak interaction
1992: to Georges Charpak for
his invention and development of particle detectors, in particular the multiwire proportional chamber, a breakthrough in the technique for exploring the innermost parts of matter
On CERN's webcast you can see the official ceremony

Mesons produced in a bubble chamber

by @ulaulaman about #mesons #bubblechamber #CERN #particles #physics
A bubble chamber is a pool filled with a liquid (typically hydrogen) such that its molecules are ionized to the passage of a charged particle, thus producing bubbles. In this way the trajectories of the particles are visible and it is possible to study the various decays(2).
The bubble chamber was invented by Donald Glaser(1) in 1952, who win the Nobel Prize in 1960.
(1) Glaser, D. (1952). Some Effects of Ionizing Radiation on the Formation of Bubbles in Liquids Physical Review, 87 (4), 665-665 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.87.665
(2) Image from the italian version of Weisskopf, V. (1968). The Three Spectroscopies Scientific American, 218 (5), 15-29 DOI: 10.1038/scientificamerican0568-15

Neutrinos: between Pontecorvo and Majorana

posted by @ulaulaman about #neutrinos #BrunoPontecorvo #EttoreMajorana
Neutrinos are the most elusive elementary particles in the whole zoo. The reasons are simple: first of all neutrinos don't have electric charge, so physicists cannot use electromagnetic experiments in order to detect them, and they must design indirect measures; furthermore they interact with other particles only with weak interaction. At the other hand, neutrino is, in Standard Model, massless, while from an experimental point of view, he has a really small mass: at the beginning of 2000, Mainz and Troitsk experiment measured a maximum value at 2.2 eV, that is about 4 milion less that the electron mass!

Carlo Franzinetti (left) and Bruno Pontecorvo (Right)
The idea of neutrino's mass is dued by Bruno Pontecorvo that introduced in 1957 the so called neutrino's oscillations(1, 2): in this model is expected the existence of three type of neutrinos that, combining with each other, giving rise to neutrinos usually observed in experiments. The thoery was further developed in 1962 by Ziro Maki, Masami Nakagawa and Shoici Sakata(3): \[\begin{pmatrix} \nu_e \\ \nu_\mu \\ \nu_\tau \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} U_{e_1} & U_{e_2} & U_{e_3} \\ U_{\mu_1} & U_{\mu_2} & U_{\mu_3} \\ U_{\tau_1} & U_{\tau_2} & U_{\tau_3} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \nu_1 \\ \nu_2 \\ \nu_3 \end{pmatrix}\] where $e$, $\mu$, $\tau$ indicate the three different leptons (electron, muon and tau), $\nu$ are neutrinos, with $\nu_i$, where $i = 1,2,3$, the fundamental neutrinos.
But, if the Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata matrix describes neutrinos' oscillations, we could describe the neutrino also using a particular equation: the Majorana equation(4): \[i \gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \psi - m \psi_c = 0\] where \[\psi_c = \gamma^2 \psi^*\] is the so called conjugated charge.
Now, if a wave function $\psi$ respects the Majorana equation, then $m$ is called Majorana mass; if $\psi$ coincides with $\psi_c$, then $\psi$ is said Majorana spinor; finally, if there is a particle that can be described with the Majorana equation, then this is called a Majorana particle, i.e. a particle that coincides with its antiparticle. The leading candidate to be a Majorana particle is, look at the case, the neutrino, whose mass is probably not so important with regard to the ultimate fate of the universe. In fact, the astronomical data suggest a flat universe, where flat universe means a substantial balance between gravitational attraction and expansion of spacetime.
Conclusion: the importance of neutrino oscillations are related to the property to possess a mass: experiments confirmed that property, owned by all three neutrinos in the game. The astronomical data, however, assign this property a minor role for the ultimate fate of the universe, while its mass shows instead of the Standard Model, at present, still does not understand much of the physics of our universe. Among the facts not included in the Standard Model are the Majorana particles: in particular, the neutrino could be one of them and if this is confirmed, then we would have a great step in order to know the symmetry breaking between matter and antimatter.

The B mesons and the new physics

posted by @ulaulaman via @LHCbExperiment #newphysics #Bmesons #LHC #CERN #particlephysics
The search about B mesons decays has a great importance in physics for the possible clues of new physics that could be discovered. So theoretical phisicists have developed some new observables in order to test this possibility. LHCb produced new results about these new parameters, in particular the so called $P_5'$.
According to Joaquim Matias from Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona and colleagues the deviation in $P_5'$ and small discrepancies in the other angular observables for this decay, follow a pattern. In a recent paper the authors claim that a global analysis of the LHCb data, together with previous measurements, show a deviation of $4.5 \sigma$ with respect to Standard Model expectations, which can be explained with the same mechanism. This demands further investigation, in particular to re-evaluate all the sources of theoretical uncertainty, and to understand the effects of correlations between the experimental measurements.
(via LHCb)
The image shows the distribution of the $P_5'$ observable as a function of the $\mu^+ \mu^-$ invariant mass squared $q^2$. The black data points are compared with the Standard Model prediction.

First evidence of photon polarisation in a quark transition

posted by @ulaulaman via @LHCbExperiment #newPhysics #StandardModel #LHC #CERN
There are a lot of model about physics beyond standard model, and the experimental work is concentrate to search signals to select the new models for the future. LHCb has recently released a press release about the transition of a b-quark to an s-quark with the emission of a photon. This transition
is considered a very important process to investigate possible manifestation of new physics. This decay process is forbidden in the first approximation in the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics and moreover in the second-order processes that govern the process in the SM the emitted photon is expected to be strongly polarised. Therefore it is very sensitive to new physics effects arising from the exchange of new heavy particles in electroweak penguin diagrams (see 14 June 2013 news). Indeed, several models of new physics predict that the emitted photon should be less polarised than in the SM. Up to now different experiments have measured the decay rate of this process, ruling out significant deviations of the rate from the SM prediction and strongly reducing the allowed parameter space of new physics models. The photon polarisation was, however, never previously observed.
I think that this is a really intriguing news for a particle physics point of view.

The circle of life

An electron encountered a positron: they are inexorably drawn towards each other, but their combination is intended to be fatal, and from their union remains only a photon, traveling... and traveling... and traveling... and occasionally it disappears, it decomposes into an electron and a positron. These, however, are futile images, as long as they do not possess enough energy to go away, to far away from each other.
Until the next waltz.
The image (via Quantum Diaries) represent a Feynman's diagram about the electron-positron annihilation and a next pair production. In the middle of the diagram, there is the auto energy of the photon, and it is named loop, and the diagram, loop diagram.
Read also: Let’s draw Feynman diagrams! | Feynman diagrams (pdf)

The boson, the spin and the graviton

Some days ago, ATLAS has been released a draft about the spin of the new boson. The decay channels studied are the fab four: $H \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$, $H \rightarrow WW^*$, $H \rightarrow l\nu l\nu$, $H \rightarrow ZZ^* \rightarrow 4l$. The idea is combining data from the four channels in order to understand the spin of the new boson, in detail to distinguish between two cases: spin 0 ($J^P = 0^+$), and so a boson compatible with the Standard Model, and spin 2 ($J^P = 2^+$), that it could be connected with a model (arXiv) that represents a light coupling between the Standard Model's fields and the hypothetical graviton.
These the ATLAS' conclusions:
The data are in good agreement with the expected distributions of a $J^P=0^+$ particle while the graviton-inspired $J^P=2^+$ model, that is expected to be produced dominantly via the gluon fusion process, is excluded at more than 99.9% confidence level.
We could say that it starting the elimination process of the models that would lead the research of the new physics beyond the Standard Model for the next years. A good luck to all of them, but we don't forget the key role of the Standard Model, that is in some sense confirmed by this last draft from ATLAS.

Play the game with the Higgs boson

In the mid-March at Moriond 2013 ATLAS and CMS presented the last results about the research of the Higgs' boson. While CMS reduced the excess for the $H \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ decay channell, ATLAS continued to observe it. This result could be a clue that the boson discovered and announced last year is only the first of a series of Higgs' bosons. Indeed, following Albert De Roeck of CSM, the photon decay could be connected with...
new physics and there are a great deal of models that can come with such a number
In order to resolve the question (is the new boson the only Higgs' boson or simply a Higgs' boson?) we have to wait the end of the maintenance work of LHC, but in the meantime we could play with the Quark Matter Card Game, in particular the variant named Higgs Boson - on Your Own!
Object of the game: to win, by detecting a decay of a Higgs boson. If this does not happen in a given game, one can win by statistics, by collecting the largest number of particle cards.
The proposed game is a variation of Memory

Mickey Mouse at the CERN

The most famous laboratory of the year is certanly the CERN thanks to the discovery of a new boson that it seems equal to the boson predicted by Peter Higgs et al.
CERN was established in 1952 and formed in 1954. Currently the experiments are carried with the LHC (Large Hadron Collider), but the previous accelerator ring was LEP, Large Electron-Positron Collider, that was used from 1989 to 2000. In particular in 1985 Alessandro Bencivenni, an italian disney writer, went at CERN and, inspired by the announced LEP, he wrote a story setted at the swiss laboratory, Mickey Mouse and the nuclear accelerator (Topolino e l'acceleratore nucleare), never published in english, so I decided to translate the cartoons about the explanation of the device and the experiment.
The popularizer is Atomo Bleep-Bleep, a charachter created by Romano Scarpa in Mickey Mouse and the Delta Dimension (first italian edition: 1959; first english edition: 1981 in Great Britain). I hope to write something about Atomo Bleep-Bleep, Doctor Einmug and the Delta Dimension in a future post, but for now I hope you can enjoy with this extract from the story, drawned by Massimo De Vita (I must remember that copyright is Disney):