Friday, July 09, 2010

The incredibly shrinking proton

Ulla sent to the previous posting an interesting link about the discovery that the charge radius of proton deduced from the muonic version of hydrogen atom is about 4 per cent smaller than from the radius deduced from hydrogen atom and specialists tell that this cannot be true. The New Scientist article is here. The Nature article Quantum electrodynamics-a chink in the armour? is here. Nature does not have a habit of publishing rumours so that the finding must be taken very seriously.

The finding is a problem of QED or to the standard view about what proton is. Lamb shift is the effect distinguishing between the states hydrogen atom having otherwise the same energy but different angular momentum. The effect is due to the quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field. The energy shift factorizes to a product of two expressions. The first one describes the effect of these zero point fluctuations on the position of electron or muon and the second one characterizes the average of nuclear charge density as "seen" by electron or muon. The latter one should be same as in the case of ordinary hydrogen atom but it is not. Does this mean that the presence of muon reduces the charge radius of proton as determined from muon wave function? This of course looks implausible since the radius of proton is so small. Note that the compression of the muon's wave function has the same effect.

Before continuing it is good to recall that QED and quantum field theories in general have difficulties with the description of bound states: something which has not received too much attention. For instance, van der Waals force at molecular scales is a problem. A possible TGD based explanation and a possible solution of difficulties proposed for two decades ago is that for bound states the two charged particles (say nucleus and electron or two atoms) correspond to two 3-D surfaces glued by flux tubes rather than being idealized to points of Minkowski space. This would make the non-relativistic description based on Schrödinger amplitude natural and replace the description based on Bethe-Salpeter equation having horrible mathematical properties.

Addition: This posting has been subject to continual modifications as I have been fighting with the model armed with my miserable calculational skills. Therefore I made a bigger updating which hopefully provides a clearer representation. The calculations are represented in a little article at my homepage.

1. Basic facts and notions

Can one say anything interesting about the possible mechanism behind the anomaly if one accepts TGD framework? How the presence of muon could reduce the charge radius of proton? Let us first list the basic facts.

  1. One can say that the size of muonic hydrogen characterized by Bohr radius is by factor me/mμ=211.4 smaller than for hydrogen atom and equals to 250 fm. Hydrogen atom Bohr radius is .53 Angstroms.

  2. Proton contains 2 quarks with charge 2e/3 and one d quark which charge -e/. These quarks are light. The last determination of quark masses gives masses, which are mu=2 MeV and md=5 MeV (I leave out the error bars). The standard view is that the contribution of quarks to proton mass is of same order of magnitude. This would mean that quarks are not too relativistic meaning that one can assign to them a size of order Compton wave length of order 4×re≈600 fm in the case of u quark (roughly twice the Bohr radius of muonic hydrogen) and 10×re≈24 fm in the case of d quark. These wavelengths are much longer than the proton charge radius and for u quark more than twice longer than the Bohr radius of the muonic hydrogen. That parts of proton would be hundreds of times larger than proton itself sounds a rather weird idea. One could of course argue that the scales in question do not correspond to anything geometric. In TGD framework this is not the way out since quantum classical correspondence requires this geometric correlate.

  3. There is also the notion of classical radius of electron and quark. It is given by r= α hbar/m and is in the case of electron this radius is 2.8 fm whereas proton charge radius is .877 fm and smaller. The dependence on Planck constant is only apparent as it should be since classical radius is in question. For u quark the classical radius is .52 fm and smaller than proton charge radius. The constraint that the classical radii of quarks are smaller than proton charge radius gives a lower bound of quark masses: p-adic scaling of u quark mass by 2-1/2 would give classical radius .73 fm which still satisfies the bound. TGD framework the proper generalization would be r= αKhbar/m, where αK is Kähler coupling strength defining the fundamental coupling constant of the theory and quantized from quantum criticality. Its value is very near or equal to fine structure constant in electron length scale.

  4. The intuitive picture is that light-like 3-surfaces assignable to quarks describe random motion of partonic 2-surfaces with light-velocity. This is analogous to zitterbewegung assigned classically to the ordinary Dirac equation. The interpretation of zitterbewegung radius as classical radius looks rather natural. The notion of braid emerging from Chern-Simons Dirac equation via periodic boundary conditions means that the orbits of partonic 2-surface effectively reduces to braids carrying fermionic quantum numbers. These braids in turn define higher level braids which would move inside a structure characterizing the particle geometrically. Internal consistency suggests that the classical radius r=&alphaKhbar/m characterizes the size scale of the zitterbewegung orbits of quarks.

    I cannot resist the temptation to emphasize the fact that Bohr orbitology is now reasonably well understood. The solutions of field equations with higher than 3-D CP2 projection describing radiation fields allow only generalizations of plane waves but not their superpositions in accordance with the fact it is these modes that are observed. For massless extremals with 2-D CP2 projection superposition is possible only for parallel light-like wave vectors. Furthermore, the restriction of the solutions of the Chern-Simons Dirac equation at light-like 3-surfaces to braid strands gives the analogs of Bohr orbits. Wave functions of -say electron in atom- are wave functions for the position of wormhole throat and thus for braid strands so that Bohr's theory becomes part of quantum theory.

  5. In TGD framework quantum classical correspondence requires -or at least strongly suggests- that also the p-adic length scales assignable to u and d quarks have geometrical correlates. That quarks would have sizes much larger than proton itself how sounds rather paradoxical and could be used as an objection against p-adic length scale hypothesis. Topological field quantization however leads to the notion of field body as a structure consisting of flux tubes and and the identification of this geometric correlate would be in terms of Kähler (or color-, or electro-) magnetic body of proton consisting of color flux tubes beginning from space-time sheets of valence quarks and having length scale of order Compton wavelength much longer than the size of proton itself. Magnetic loops and electric flux tubes would be in question. Also secondary p-adic length cale characterizes field body. For instance, in the case of electron the causal diamond assigned to electron would correspond to the time scale of .1 seconds defining an important bio-rhythm.

2. A general formula for Lamb shift in terms of proton charge radius The charge radius of proton is determined from the Lamb shift between 2S- and 2P states of muonic hydrogen. Without this effect resulting from vacuum polarization of photon Dirac equation for hydrogoen would predict identical energies for these states. The calculation reduces to the calculation of vacuum polarization of photon inducing to the Coulomb potential and an additional vacuum polarization term. Besides this effect one must also take into account the finite size of the proton which can be coded in terms of the form factor deducible from scattering data. It is just this correction which makes it possible to determine the charge radius of proton from the Lamb shift.

  1. In the article The Lamb shift Experiment in Muonic Hydrogen the basic theoretical results related to the Lamb shift in terms of the vacuum polarization of photon are discussed. Proton's charge density is in this representation is expressed in terms of proton form factor in principle deducible from the scattering data. Two special cases can be distinguished corresponding to the point like proton for which Lamb shift is non-vanishing only for S wave states and non-point like proton for which energy shift is present also for other states. The theoretical expression for the Lamb shift involves very refined calculations. Between 2P and 2S states the expression for the Lamb shift is of form

    Δ E(2P3/2F=2 − 2S1/2F=1)=a-brp2 +crp3= 209.968(5) − 5.2248 × r2p + 0.0347 × r3p meV .

    where the charge radius rp=.8750 is expressed in femtometers and energy in meVs.

  2. The general expression of Lamb shift is given in terms of the form factor by

    E(2P-2S)=∫ (d3q/(2π)3)× (-4π α ) (F(q2)/q2) × (Π(q2)/q2)× ∫ (| Ψ2P(r)|2-|Ψ2S(r)|2)exp(−iq• r) dV .

    Here Π is is a scalar representing vacuum polarization due to decay of photon to virtual pairs.

The TGD inspired model predicts that the effect is due to a leakage from "standard" state to what I call flux tube state. This means a multiplication of |Ψ2P|23/2 with the normalization factor 1/N of the standard state orthogonalized with respect to flux tube state. It is essential that 1/N is larger than unity so that the effect is a genuine quantum effect not understandable in terms of classical probability.

The modification of the formula is due to the normalization of the 2P and 2S states. These are in general different. The normalization factor 1/N is same for all terms in the expression of Lamb shift for a given state but in general different for 2S and 2P states. Since the lowest order term dominates by a factor of ≈ 40 over the second one, one one can conclude that the modification should affect the lowest order term by about 4 per cent. Since the second term is negative and the modification of the first term is interpreted as a modification of the second term when rp is estimated from the standard formula, the first term must increase by about 4 per cent. This is achieved if this state is orthogonalized with respect to the flux tube state. For states Ψ0 and Ψtube with unit norm this means the modification

Ψ0→ (1/(1-| C|2)× (Ψi -CΨtube) ,

C=⟨ Ψtube| Ψ0⟩ .

In the lowest order approximation one obtains

a-br2p+crp3→ (1+|C|2)a-brp2+crp3 .

Using instead of this expression the standard formula gives a wrong estimate rp from the condition

a-b r2p,1+crp,13→ (1+| C|2)a-brp2+crp3 .

This gives the equvalent conditions

rp,12= rp2- | C|2a/b ,

Ptube≡| C|2≈ (2b/a)× rp2 × (rp-rp,1)/rp) .

The resulting estimate for the leakage probability is Ptube≈ .0015. The model should be able to reproduce this probability.

3. Could the notion of field body explain the anomaly?

The large Compton radii of quarks and the notion of field body encourage the attempt to imagine a mechanism affecting the charge radius of proton as determined from electron's or muon's wave function.

  1. Muon's wave function is compressed to a volume which is about 8 million times smaller than the corresponding volume in the case of electron. The Compton radius of u quark more that twice larger than the Bohr radius of muonic hydrogen so that muon should interact directly with the field bodies of u quarks. The field body of d quark would have size 24 fm which is about ten times smaller than the Bohr radius so that one can say that the volume in which muons sees the field body of d quark is only one thousandth of the total volume. The main effect would be therefore due to the two u quarks having total charge of 4e/3.

    One can say that muon begins to "see" the field bodies of u quarks and interacts directly with u quarks rather than with proton via its elecromagnetic field body. With d quarks it would still interact via protons field body to which d quark should feed its electromagnetic flux. This could be quite enough to explain why the charge radius of proton determined from the expectation value defined by its wave function wave function is smaller than for electron. One must of course notice that this brings in also direct magnetic interactions with u quarks.

  2. What could be the basic mechanism for the reduction of charge radius? Could it be that the electron is caught with some probability into the flux tubes of u quarks and that Schrödinger amplitude for this kind state vanishes near the origin? The original idea was based on classical probability: the flux tube portion of state would not contribute to the charge radius and since the portion of the ordinary state would bbe smaller, and effective reduction of the charge radius would be implied. Unfortunately just the opposite occurs and this is due to the fact that the expression for the Lamb shift involves also constant term besides powers of charge radius. What happens is that the normalization factor of the standard contribution increases by the orthogonalization with the flux tube state. The effect is therefore genuinely quantum mechanical having no classical counterpart.

  3. I have blundering with this model for a week and it seems that no bad misunderstandings are present anymore. Precise numerical factors are of course dangerous at this age. By the earlier general argument one should have Ptube= .0015. This value of leakage probability is obtained for z=1 and N=2 corresponding to single flux tube per u quark. If the flux tubes are in opposite directions, the leakage into 2P state vanishes by parity. Note that the leakage does not affect the value of the coefficient a in the general formula for the Lamb shift.

    The radius of the flux tube is by a factor 1/4 smaller than the classical radius of electron and one could argue that this makes it impossible for electron to topologically condense at the flux tube. For z=4 one would have Ptube= .015, which is 10 times too large a value. Numerical errors are possible. Note that the nucleus possess a wave function for the orientation of the flux tube. If this corresponds to S-wave state then only the leakage beween S-wave states and standard states is possible.

    Since the formulas are too painful to type here, reader can consult the calculation here or in the chapter p-Adic Mass calculations: New Physics.

  4. This effect would be of course present also in the case of electron but in this case the u quarks correspond to a volume which million times smaller than the volume defined by Bohr radius so that electron does not in practice "see" the quark sub-structure of proton. The probability P for getting caught would be in a good approximation proportional to the value of |Ψ(r_u)|2 and in the first approximation one would have

    Pe/Pμ ≈ (aμ/ae)3 =(me/mμ)3≈ 10-7

    from the proportionality &Psii propto 1/a_i3/2, i=e,μ.

39 Comments:

At 12:42 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

If these too big fields would be pronounced gluons?
see http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=39033 Hydrogen phase transitions

Here is something odd too, maybe linking to this. Synthetic magnetism.

http://www.sciencecodex.com/synthetic_magnetism_achieved_by_optical_methods

Some excerpts:
..have used laser light (a quantal property) to create "synthetic magnetism," an exotic condition in which neutral atoms suddenly begin to behave as if they were charged particles interacting with a magnetic field but no magnetic field is present and no charge.

a super-atom, (like a 'superorganism')? Perpendicular fields - again, give the 'charge'.

The effect caused small quantized vortices of atoms to enter the BEC. Images of the expanding atomic cloud clearly showed that when the synthetic magnetism was not present, the atoms in the BEC had the customary distribution. But when the synthetic field was activated, vortices were plainly visible.
...especially the behavior of electrons confined in different geometries
characterizing aspects of the quantum Hall effect, a phenomenon observed in two-dimensional systems of electrons in a magnetic field. In that situation, the electrons naturally tend to follow circular ("cyclotron") orbits; and the energy levels of those orbits are quantized.
...and potentially to realize totally new states of matter such as quantum Hall states of bosons."

Research group leader Ian Spielman, a Fellow of the Joint Quantum Institute and physicist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Spielman and colleagues describe the work in a paper published in the Dec. 3 issue of Nature.

http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=38856...demonstrated polariton lasing for the first time in an organic semiconductor material at room temperature. Their results are published in the June issue of Nature Photonics. A polariton is not exactly a particle, but it behaves as if it were. It is a "coupled quantum mechanical state" between an excited molecule and a photon, or particle of light.

See also, http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=39034 Light, sound, action: The plasmonic promise of graphene

http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=39056 With Magnetic Nanoparticles, Scientists Remotely Control Neurons and Animal Behavior July 8th, 2010
Clusters of heated, magnetic nanoparticles targeted to cell membranes can remotely control ion channels, neurons and even animal behavior
www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9MqrLcLaCk

Well, I must stop now before you get mad at me. Surely you see the link?
P-adics act like the lasers?

 
At 1:40 AM, Blogger Matti Pitkanen said...

Things are going extremely fast! I have really the feeling that all beliefs are tumbling down.


Neutral particles like charged particles in something which is like magnetic field might be a final experimental proof for the notion of classical Z^0 magnetic field.

The recent model for cell membrane as super-conductor and Josephson junction is the first application in which classical Z^0 fields play key role and predicts correctly the basic peak frequencies to which retina is sensitive as Josephson frequencies of basic biological ions. A new phase of matter very near to vacuum extremals of Kahler action is in question.

 
At 2:29 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

Bosonic matter? Sounds quite odd :) Not so long ago they said absolutely that this wasn't possible:)

And look at this !
http://focus.aps.org/story/v26/st2

ultrasound!

The year of the white tiger :D I like this!!!

 
At 2:32 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

The soliton is born in that intermediate phase!

Life is solitonic, an intermediate phase between bosonic and fermionic matter?

 
At 2:38 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

If p-adics act like a laser, then maybe photons and phonons would be the (missing) smaller hierarchy? Can primes be linked to photons and phonons, or solitons in general?

 
At 3:41 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

Oh, I am drowning you again :) Here a fantastic web page
http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/

 
At 3:51 AM, Blogger Matti Pitkanen said...

I looked at synthetic magnetism. It has nothing to do with Z^0 magnetism. What is created is a system which effectively behaves like charged atoms in magnetic field.

 
At 1:22 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=41237
New states of matter also could help resolve a problem: Quantum computers can solve some problems impossible to tackle with current technology. However, actually building these new machines involves practical issues, one of which is the loss of quantum coherence. (the Fermi liquid is lost?)

Bosons, as with the condensate, might theoretically eliminate some of these problems, Spielman explained. “These quasiparticles are important for a proposed method of quantum computation, known as topological quantum computation, that is naturally robust against the decoherence.

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=903759
The largest remaining source of uncertainty can be addressed with the help of quantum electrodynamics (QED) calculations, including a new nonperturbative result reported here. More stringent tests of theory and an improved determination of the Rydberg constant may be possible if predictions can be compared with precision frequency measurements in this regime. The diversity of information can be increased by utilizing a variety of combinations of ions and Ryberg states to determine fundamental constants and test theory.

Ian Spielman, a physicist at the Joint Quantum Institute (JQI), a collaboration of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the University of Maryland at College Park, has been selected by the Maryland Academy of Sciences as the Outstanding Young Scientist for 2010.

promises to shed light on complex quantum phenomena involving charged particles and potentially enable an exotic new form of quantum computing that would rely on charged particles dancing on a surface (see “Cross-Dressing Rubidium May Reveal Clues for Exotic Computing,” at www.nist.gov/physlab/div842/rubidiu_022409.cfm).

http://www.nist.gov/physlab/div842/qip.cfm
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.5148v1.pdf

 
At 12:35 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

I once had a 'vision' posted in comments 19.10.09. I was very embarrassad of this because it did not suit. Now it maybe do :)

quote
The electron shells in school books are showed to grow in size when they are excitated (got more energy). But it is just the opposite. They become smaller? This shows the change in p-adic length scales, or hbar/Planck constant. Atoms become smaller in excitation. And the mass decrease too? In dissipation happens the opposite, the atoms grows and the mass grows. It is like an 'atomic phase change'.

Chemical reactions would then happens nearly as a gun shot, when the phase change occur back.

This picture is an 'association of my right brainhalf', as Matti has said sometimes. Could it be true? Just now I feel it is very likely true. The phase changes, the involvement of temperature, acid, pressure and so on in the phase change, on the nerve pulse and the cell functions, seen in anasthesia as instance, tells all the same story. End of quote

Could this 'phase' be one of superpositions (reduced charge) creating bound states? The other possibility is rejection when quantum states are not superimposed.

I also saw that I have maybe misunderstood the 'hole' as synonymous with a proton. It should be a positron? (antimatter?) But how could the impact of acid then be explained?

An oscillation as a soliton between matter and antimatter? Sounds too impossible?

 
At 1:38 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

Among the unexplained phenomena of Bi-2212 quasiparticles are:
(1) the appearance of anti-nodal quasiparticles only below Tc; (Today we know they happen also at higher temp.- but why? - my comment)
(2) the proportionality between the quasiparticle-peak intensity and both the superfluid and hole densities;
(3) the ‘kink’ in the nodal-quasiparticle dispersion;
(4) the apparent contradiction between nanoscale electronic disorder and quasiparticles
well-defined in k-space; and
(5) the nature of the vortexcore-
induced electronic states.

Quasiparticles increases in size with increasing energy. That is the rejection phase?

from 2003, http://people.ccmr.cornell.edu/~jcdavis/publicationPDF/Nature_422_592.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quasiparticles

A list of ad hoc?

 
At 1:42 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

In solids, an electron quasiparticle is an electron as affected by the other forces and interactions in the solid. The electron quasiparticle has the same charge and spin as a "normal" (elementary particle) electron, and like a normal electron, it is a fermion. However, its mass can differ substantially from that of a normal electron; see the article effective mass.[3] Its electric field is also modified, as a result of electric field screening. In many other respects, especially in metals under ordinary conditions, these so-called Landau quasiparticles[citation needed] closely resemble familiar electrons; as Crommie's "quantum corral" showed, an STM can clearly image their interference[disambiguation needed] upon scattering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle

Now I stop. I make a fool of myself.

 
At 1:57 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

From 2008: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2038/curious-quasiparticles-have-a-quarter-charge-electron
The outcome is that a quasiparticle can 'remember' the path it has taken. Dolev expects this property to be exploited in an exotic type of quantum computer called a 'topological quantum computer'.

The computing would be done "by rotating quasiparticles, one around the other." Dolev said. "All you care about, then, is which quasiparticle went around which, not the exact path. This is what makes it 'topological', since you only care about the topology of the path."

In topological quantum computers a bit could be made from two quasiparticles.

In other types of quantum computing, for example linking quantum bits with lasers, the system is strongly affected by its environment. An ever-so-slight movement stops the system from working. But because of the path of these quasiparticles is not important, a topological quantum computer would be much more robust.

In another article: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3520/light-memories-recall-quantum-information
"In principle, we could store a whole image - even a holographic image. You could take photo with the lasers, and store it using this crystal," said Matt Sellars of the Australian National University in Canberra.

Sellars and his colleagues used a single pulse of photons in the form of a laser light, shining it into a crystal cooled to -270°C. The crystal is no ordinary crystal: it is coated in rare earth metal ions and surrounded by a magnetic field.

In 2005, the researchers reported that, with this set up, they could force the crystal to absorb and store photons for up to one second, which increased memory storage by more than 1,000 times.

Communication at distance too. Quasiparticles are BEC's? Or magnetic flux tubes?

Now I stop :)

 
At 3:17 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

http://www.dur.ac.uk/physics/research/
http://massey.dur.ac.uk/
http://www.dur.ac.uk/physics/research/cmp/
and Elementary Particle Theory
http://www.ippp.dur.ac.uk/old/Research/Phenomenology/content.htm
and much, much more

 
At 3:41 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

I feel ashame, but I found that Nature article about the fractional Hall effect...
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/condmat/heiblum/papers/nature06855.pdf

 
At 11:29 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

I cont my foolings, this is so interesting, but of course you already know of it. I can't help it, this is how I am. Sorry.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1889v2.pdf

on the existence of topological states of matter whose quasiparticle excitations are neither bosons nor fermions, but are particles known as Non-Abelian anyons, obey non-Abelian braiding statistics. Quantum information is stored in states with multiple quasiparticles, which have a topological degeneracy. the only such topological states thought
to have been found in nature are fractional quantum Hall states, most prominently the v = 5/2 state,

linked to Fibonacci anyons and quasiholes.

It is easy to see that (if the number of electrons is divisible
by 3) the number of blocks with n quasiparticles is given
by the n − 1st Fibonacci number, p 43

You have also talked of anyonic matter.

 
At 3:35 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

I think you should look at this.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1126-6708/2009/08/032/pdf/1126-6708_2009_08_032.pdf

Muon has an anomalous magnetic moment.

 
At 1:30 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

If the electron shells are dependent on the flux tube scales, that are bosonic, then this order must come from somewhere. What is the quantum chaos? Is it bosonic? Is it at all something real? Maybe the order come into the WCW in between, in the soliton and other types of waves, of which the magnetic monopole is one? It is these oscillations that bring in the order?
The first thing that must be broken is then the creation of the basic symmetries. This creation is something basic in the consciousness too, because the symmetry can after that only be broken, and the asymmetry grow.

Nobody has talked of the creation of the symmetries before? Only of broken symmetries? Lost symmetries.

Life is something very essential, because Life has as princip non-broken symmetries? Coherence and synergy, what needs consciousness and self (topology).

Living matter is intermediate matter, and the answer to quantum physics lies in living matter?

 
At 4:50 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

Symmetry creation is hidden in flavor? You talk of the electron:proton relation. Reason: resonances.

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000815

André de Gouvêa, a theorist at Northwestern University, says that since the muon acts like a massive electron, physicists expected it to behave a certain way. They thought it would break down into a more stable electron and jettison its extra mass in the form of energy. "But they didn't see this happen," de Gouvêa says, "so that was a big puzzle."

In fact, the muon seemed to be following some mysterious new rule, which prevented it from transforming directly into a single electron. This rule became known as flavor conservation.

observing the muon-to-electron transformation should be well within the reach of Mu2e's particle detectors.

Scientists have observed that particles, like many humans, yearn for stability. So it would make sense that chubby muon would, presto!—shed its extra heft and morph directly into svelte, immortal electron.

Recent discoveries make the case for flavor violation within the charged lepton family even more compelling. Physicists have found that neutrinos— leptons without electric charge—are notorious flavor violators.

In fact, muons do typically decay into electrons that are accompanied by neutrinos—the aloof particles that rarely interact with anything. However, this is not flavor violation; only the direct conversion of a muon to a single electron, with the emittance of nothing else but energy, qualifies, and this has never been seen.

De Gouvêa says the law of flavor conservation "seems to be a fundamental symmetry of nature, and we want to find out why—in particular, because it is a very ad hoc one. It wasn't necessary for the world to exist. It was just something that happened."

Physicists have come to the conclusion that the Standard Model, with its ad-hoc flavor conservation policy, does, in fact, allow muons to convert directly to electrons—but only if this happens so rarely that nobody would ever be able to observe it.

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/07/14/june-2010-issue-of-symmetry-now-online/

 
At 8:43 PM, Anonymous Janne said...

"Before continuing it is good to recall that QED and quantum field theories in general have difficulties with the description of bound states: something which has not received too much attention. For instance, van der Waals force at molecular scales is a problem."

What sort of problems? This sounds very interesting.

 
At 1:58 AM, Blogger Matti Pitkanen said...

Hi Janne,

nice to hear about you again!

The Quantum Field Theory by Itzykson and Zuber is one of the very few books about theoretical physics I have been able to afford and tells about the difficulties. I hope that you have access to it.

At page 365 there is a discussion of van der Waals forces and the conclusion is that relativistic treatment gives 1/r^7 force instead of non-relativistic 1/r^6 required by empirical facts.

At page 480 begins a discussion of Bethe-Salpeter equation and and one of the conclusions is that the equation predicts unphysical states having no non-relativistic counterparts and also negative norm states.

To my opinion the reason for the failure is at the fundamental level: bound states correspond to space-like 3-surfaces rather than collections of point like particles in 4-D Minkowski space M^4. This new view does not lead to breaking of Lorentz invariance in TGD framework where Poincare symmetries are identified as those of higher-dimensional imbedding space.

 
At 7:54 AM, Anonymous Janne said...

I'll keep the book in mind. My current understanding of QFT is very basic.

Interesting that certain topics get swept under the rug for convenience. I didn't even find a mention of van der Waals force in Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell by Zee. Atleast the Itzykson and Zuber book is mentioned in the Further Reading section.

 
At 8:28 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

Kaons oscillate between matter and antimatter :-)

"A kaon can switch between being itself and being its anti-self – from kaon to anti-kaon and back again. All quark families known today must contribute to the process where in a few cases the symmetry will be broken." Nobel 2008. Related to the soliton?

Related to this question of Janne: How is the difference between London forces and Van der Waals forces? If I remember right the van der Waals was too strong for the proteinfolding? London forces was not good either? In papers they often talks of London forces. They are a bit weaker?

Look at the discussion on Gibbs blogg, LHC-rumour. Related to this question?

 
At 3:37 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

Kea tells this oscillation isn't symmetric.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0395v1

Excerpt: Since the interaction length of the K+ meson is greater than that of the K− meson, kaons provide a positive contribution to the asymmetries A and a. The asymmetries for other background sources (pions, protons and falsely reconstructed tracks) are at least a factor of ten smaller.

After subtracting the muons originating from kaons,
pions and protons, we find the fraction of muons in the inclusive muon sample from prompt sources constituting the signal sample (heavy flavor) to be 0.581 ± 0.014 (stat) ± 0.039 (syst). The signal fraction arising from prompt sources for the like-sign dimuon sample, after subtracting the contribution from events where one
or both muons are background, is 0.665 ± 0.016 (stat) ± 0.033 (syst).
Table III of Ref. [14] lists all significant contributions to the dimuon charge asymmetry caused by detector effects. The largest of these is 3%. The reversal of both solenoid and toroid magnet polarities suppresses many detector effects, reducing thereby any charge asymmetry introduced by track reconstruction and muon identification considerably.

The asymmetry disagrees with the prediction of the SM by 3.2 standard deviations. This is the first evidence for anomalous CP violation in the mixing of neutral B mesons.

 
At 7:31 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C070910/PDF/306.pdf from 2007

There is a kaon soliton coupled to the skyrmion. "In the flavor symmetric case the interaction Hamiltonian contains only a single structure of SU(3) matrix elements for the Θ+ → KN transition. This proves earlier soliton model approaches incorrect that adopted any possible structure that could contribute and fitted coefficients from a variety of hadronic decays under the assumption of SU(3) relations. Since the presented analysis merely concerns the treatment of kaon degrees of freedom, the qualitative results are valid for any chiral soliton model.

http://newton.kias.re.kr/KH04/talks/rho.ppt From 2004: With SU(2) a 'hedgehog' kaon is needed. + hidden local symmetries. Now the condensates depend on the background as temp, density (pressure), number of flavors etc. Therefore the parameters of the bare Lagrangian depend on the background B. Controversial.

 
At 2:45 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

I cannot resist...

http://blog.vixra.org/2010/07/24/amazing-dijet-event-from-atlas

This is the closest so far?

Also about the dimensions
http://www.uscms.org/uscms_at_work/physics/lpc/posters/index.shtml
http://www.uscms.org/uscms_at_work/physics/lpc/posters/Poster_EDs_duong_v6.ppt

These all have a proper TGD explanation? Enlargements are p-adic?

 
At 2:53 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

The D Collaboration reported a 3:2 sigma deviation from the standard model prediction in the like-
sign dimuon asymmetry.

If the evidence for the siz-
able dimuon charge asymmetry in Eq. (1) is con rmed,
it would unequivocally point to CP violation beyond the
CKM mechanism of the SM.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.0432v1.pdf

 
At 3:49 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.5213v2.pdf

 
At 4:44 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

Eric Verlinde has been busy
His talk, nice. Take a look.
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=1201&sessionId=47&resId=1&materialId=slides&confId=73513

 
At 1:33 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v3/62
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3895

 
At 1:41 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

http://www.sciencecodex.com/pinning_atoms_into_order
an arbitrarily weak perturbation causes atoms to build an organized structure from an initially unorganized one.

http://www.sciencecodex.com/electrical_activity_in_developing_brain_influences_choice_of_neurotransmitter
Cascades of genetic signals determine which neurotransmitter a brain cell will ultimately use to communicate with other cells. biologists at the University of California, San Diego, have shown for the first time that electrical activity in these developing neurons can alter their chemical fate—and change an animal's behavior—by tweaking this genetic program.

Both genetic factors and activity determine which neurotransmitter the mature neuron will use, an interaction that likely allows the brain to assemble circuits appropriate to a variable environment,

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/heisenbergs_uncertainty_principle_only_mostly_uncertain
their results show that the magnitude of the uncertainty depends on the degree of correlation ("entanglement") between the quantum memory and the quantum particle.

Memory from the particle?

Matti, let up.

 
At 3:19 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

This is embarrassing, but I have to cont. Why do you force me to this?

Look at http://blog.vixra.org/2010/07/24/amazing-dijet-event-from-atlas/

The jets can be also 'not-opposit' compare to Lubos. See comments.

 
At 6:19 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

A story by Geoff Brumfiel in Nature, The proton shrinks in size.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100707/full/news.2010.337.html

Quote: But the new measurements could mean that there is a gap in existing theories of quantum mechanics. "It's a very serious discrepancy," says Ingo Sick, a physicist at the University of Basel in Switzerland, who has tried to reconcile the finding with four decades of previous measurements. "There is really something seriously wrong someplace."

Protons are among the most common particles. the proton remains something of a mystery to nuclear physicists, says Randolf Pohl, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, and an author on the Nature paper. "We don't understand a lot of its internal structure," he says.

http://www.mpq.mpg.de/cms/mpq/en/index.html http://www.mpq.mpg.de/cms/mpq/en/news/press/index.html
http://www.mpq.mpg.de/cms/mpq/en/news/press/pdf/2010/PR_10_07_08.pdf with movies and photos

"Something is missing, this is very clear," agrees Carl Carlson, a theoretical physicist at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. The most intriguing possibility is that previously undetected particles are changing the interaction of the muon and the proton. Such particles could be the 'superpartners' of existing particles

http://www.physics.wm.edu/~carlson/

About Lamb shifts in superconductors
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36957
The team’s transmon is placed in a microwave cavity and its shape was chosen to give it a large electrical dipole moment. This increases the strength at which it interacts with both microwave photons and the virtual photons of the vacuum. In addition, the shape and size of the cavity were designed to enhance the photon’s electric field in the region of the qubit.

Transitions between qubit energy levels occur when electrons in the superconductor collectively absorb or emit photons at certain wavelengths. This process can be enhanced by tuning the frequency of microwave radiation injected into the cavity so that a single photon of the correct wavelength bounces back and forth across the qubit many times. measured a cavity-enhanced shift of 1% in the difference between the two energy levels. This is 10,000 times greater than the Lamb shift seen in hydrogen without a cavity.


I think we should define what mass really is. It seems more than unclear.

The lack of discussions are surprising. Physicists (in general - not you) have not yet been told what they should think :) the same as for Higgs boson conference :) Wanted: a guru :)

 
At 6:59 AM, Blogger Matti Pitkanen said...

Thank you for a comment. It is strictly about topic;-)! I do not have heart to throw away comments even if they do not relate to the topic of posting and tend to drown the point of the original posting completely. In any case, I encourage to continue in this on-topic spirit.

The silence around the Lamb shift anomaly looks really strange but is understandable. M-theorists would be happy if they were able to reproduce something even remotely resembling the standard model. There is no hope of saying something about anomalies like this which challenge the basic assumptions of quantum field theory underlying also the process leading to superstrings and eventually to the recent situation.

The complete neglect of this anomaly at the age of world wide web is denialism and psychologically very natural. It is terrifying to think that last 26 years the whole community of leading particle theoreticians might have been on wrong track.

What would be needed would be a total change of attitudes. Theoreticians should transform from the developers of curriculum vitae to real explorers. Probably impossible in the ultra competitive academic environment and as long as the old hegemony prevails.

 
At 8:35 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

You know the reason why I comment off-topic, and you know how you could avoid it. My eagerness is almost as yours, although my knowledge is not :)

If you give me the chance I will post only on-topic. I am so ashamed for this situation. And so sorry. It hurts a lot too, very much. You know my achilles heel.

I miss my teacher, and his humor and person :)

 
At 10:21 AM, Blogger SteveB said...

You seem like an extremely open minded scientist.

Are you aware of this person and his theories? The link leads to his work on anomalies including the Lamb shift.

http://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/experimental-evidence-for-energy-in-spacetime/

or perhaps better:

http://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/fwd-relativity-6/

 
At 10:01 PM, Blogger Matti Pitkanen said...

To Ulla,

I have told why I closed my email box. I have no time to read an email flood coming with a rate of 10 emails per day. When I do not so you begin to blame me. I thought that allowing your comments in blog would be a good idea but there is a flood again! Links are nice but if I comment every possible news in web I do not have time for any serious work. Could it be a good idea to put some upper bound on the number of comments: say five and on topic if possible.

 
At 10:10 PM, Blogger Matti Pitkanen said...

To SteveV:


In the abstract Evans speaks of energy in space-time. As such the idea that space-time carries energy is not new. In general relativity Einstein's equations express this fact and equate Einstein tensor with energy momentum tensor. This defines the coupling between electromagnetic and other energies to the space-time geometry.

One could however argue that also electromagnetic and other fields should have a purely geometric meaning. Evans seems to argue that his theory gives something like this. This looks nice and this conforms my own vision.

I have however read earlier a couple of papers of Evans and I was very unhappy to find that his
deduction of what would be the counterpart of Einstein's equations contained an elementary error at the level of basic linear algebra. His ansatz for space-time metric meant that space-time would be effectively 1-dimensional in the sense that the distance along 3- directions would be vanishing. This is of course a fatal error. I do not know whether Evans has done something to correct this mistake.

 
At 1:17 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

I'm sad to read that, because I really thought you would write. I got that impression, and I was happy.

What you say isn't quite true, as you know. I was worried to death when I wrote those, but what would I do? Drive the 50 miles only to see you was ok? Can't you understand that? I have apologized, but have you?
Are you worth to worrie so about? Do you see your own value? I only tried to say so you would understand you cannot do like that. It is fatal to me. Do you understand my value (if I have any at all)?

I am perhaps your biggest fan, and I think I really understand your theory and you treat me like that. It is so fantastic, so beautiful. You think I take away your time, but I'm not, I add. Your theory is almost as important to me as it is to you. I feel obliqued to 'pay back' in the form of 'candies', = fantastic stories. It is my duty :)
That's why the comments are what they are, and I feel ashame, because they have nothing to do here. They are just small bits of 'evidence' in favour of Tgd.

Physics is difficult and you said yourself that it was horrifying to think to learn everything at this age. It is. I am still clumsy but I have to learn this beautiful and strange world, so I can in my own way promote Tgd. It is not for my demand of attention, as you said, or maybe a little :) To realize something together is big. To fly in the sky. Experiencies must be shared, as you yourself said. A lonely millionaire...And that cannot happen without an EGO, a self, two diamonds. You still don't know about your own ego, and it is big, as my diamond. You forget everything else for it, but say you hate it.

I know you have to do this theory. It is your duty :)

Please forgive me for this. I have thought of it the whole day, but it have to be said. I write like nobody else, I know. Please don't be angry again, because I am horrofied already. Delete it at once. I'll try to do as you want to.

 
At 5:41 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

Oh, that still hurts.

A comment on topic.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727793.500-large-proton-halo-sparks-devilish-row.html

A proton's radius cannot be measured directly, but by measuring the energies of different electron "shells" in a hydrogen atom. Through QED, these energies combine with a model of how the proton's charge is distributed to give the proton's radius.

The smaller value for the proton radius came from measurements of an exotic form of hydrogen (muonic). This was expected merely to add precision to previous measurements based on ordinary hydrogen. Instead, the muonic measurements suggested a radius that was a whopping 4 per cent smaller (New Scientist, 10 July, p 10). That could signify a problem either with the muonic measurement or with QED, neither of which seems particularly likely.

Now Alvaro De Rújula of the Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain, has another solution: changing our model of how the proton's positive charge is distributed.

About 75 per cent of this charge is concentrated in a central core, the edge of which is considered the edge of the proton proper. Although the other quarter of the proton's charge lies outside this (see diagram), the charge distribution in the "halo" is still key to finding the proton radius. So De Rújula decided to explore whether varying the charge distribution in the halo could bring the old and new calculations for the proton's radius into agreement - and remove the conflict with QED.

He found that it can, if the halo band extends 4.7 times as far as previously thought. He concludes that this is the proton's true structure (Physics Letters B, DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2010.08.074).

The proposal has been contentious since De Rújula first posted it to the arxiv preprint server on 23 August. Chief among the sceptics are Gerald A. Miller and Ian Cloët of the University of Washington in Seattle, who posted a rebuttal just two days later. "De Rújula's explanation is simply off the wall," says Miller. "It is as if the amount of water in a thimble were spread out into the volume of a swimming pool".

This is an exaggeration, counters De Rújula, "unless the thimble covers a whale's face".

Miller concedes that a thimble and a pint glass is a fairer analogy. Even so, he and Cloët have calculated that a proton with a charge that extends as far as De Rújula suggests is not compatible with experiments looking at the extent to which electrons are deflected towards protons at different distances (arxiv.org/abs/1008.4345v3).

De Rújula says the matter could be resolved with new electron-proton collision experiments or fresh analysis of existing data. He is convinced that, somehow, "QED will be vindicated".

 

Post a Comment

<< Home