Saturday, October 22, 2011

3-jet and 9-jet events as a further evidence for M89 hadron physics?

Lubos Motl told about slight 3-jet and 9-jet excesses seen by CMS collaboration in LHC data. There is an article about 3-jet excess titled Search for Three-Jet Resonances in pp Collisions at s1/2 = 7 TeV by CMS collaboration. Figure 3 of the article and also the figure of Lubos blog posting shows what has been found. In 3-jet case the effects exceeds 3-sigma level between 350 GeV and 410 GeV and the center is around 380-390 GeV.

Experimenters see 3-jets as 1.9 sigma evidence for SUSY. It is probably needless to tell that 1.9 sigma evidences come and go and should not be taken seriously. Gluino pair would be produced and each gluino with mass around 385 GeV would decay to three quarks producing three jets. In tri-jet case altogether 3+3=6 jets would be produced in the decays of gluinos. The problem is that there is no missing energy predicted by MSSM scenario without R-parity breaking. Therefore the straightforward proposal of CMS collaboration is that R-parity is broken by a coupling of gluino to 3 quark state so that gluino would effectively have quark number three and gluino can decay to 3 light quarks- say uds.

The basic objection against this idea is that the distribution of 3-jet masses is very wide extending from 75 GeV (slightly below 100 GeV for selected events) to about 700 GeV as one learns from figure 1 of the CMS preprint. Resonance interpretation does not look convincing to me and to my humble opinion this is a noble but desperate attempt to save the standard view about SUSY. After proposing the explanation which follows I realized to my surprise that I had already earlier tried to explain the 390 GeV bump in terms of M89 baryon but found that this explanation failssince the mass is too low to allow this interpretation (see this).

There is also an article about nona-jets titled Has SUSY Gone Undetected in 9-jet Events? A Ten-Fold Enhancement in the LHC Signal Efficiency but I will not discuss this except by noticing that nona-jet events would serve as a unique signature of M89 baryon decays in TGD framework if the proposed model for tri-jets is correct.

Before continuing I want to make clear my motivations for spending time with thinking about this kind events which are probably statistical fluctuations. If I were an opportunist I would concentrate all my efforts to make a maximum noise about the successes of TGD. I am however an explorer rather than career builder and physics is to me a passion- something much more inspiring than personal fame. My urge is to learn what TGD SUSY is and what it predicts and this kind of activity is the best manner to do it.

1. Could one interpret the 3-jet events in terms of TGD SUSY without R-parity breaking?

I already mentioned the very wide range of 3-jet distribution as a basic objection against gluino pair interpretation. But just for curiosity one can also consider a possible interpretation in the framework provided by TGD SUSY.

As I have explained in the article, one could understand the apparent absence of squarks and gluinos in TGD framework in terms of shadronization which would be faster process than the selectro-weak decays of squarks so that the standard signatures of SUSY (jest plus missing energy) would not be produced. The mass scales and even masses of quark and squark could be identical part from a splitting caused by mixing. The decay widths of weak bosons do not however allow light exotic fermions coupling to them and this in the case of ordinary hadron physics this requires that squarks are dark having therefore non-standard value of Planck constant coming as an integer multiple of the ordinary Planck constant (see this). For M89 hadron physics this constraint is not necessary.

One can indeed imagine an explanation for 3-jets in terms of decays of gluino pair in TGD framework without R-parity breaking.

  1. Both gluinos would decay as sg→ sq+q* (or charge conjugate of this) and squark in turn decays as sq → q+ sg. This would give quark pair and two virtual gluinos. Virtual gluinos would transform to a quark pair by an exchange of virtual squark: sg→ q+sq*. This would give 3 quark jets and 3 anti-quark jets.

  2. Why this option possible also in MSSM is not considered by CMS collaboration? Do the bounds on squark masses make the rate quite too low? The very strong lower bounds on squark masses in MSSM type SUSY were indeed known towards the end of August when the article was published. In TGD framework these bounds are not present since squarks could appear with masses of ordinary quarks if they are dark in TGD sense. Gluinos would be however dark and the amplitude for the phase transition transforming gluon to its dark variant decaying to a gluino pair could make the rate too low.

  3. If one takes the estimate for the M89 gluino mass seriously and scales to a very naive mass estimate for M107 gluino by a factor 1/512, one obtains m(sg107)=752 MeV.

As already noticed, I do not take this explanation too seriously: the tri-jet distribution is quite too wide.

2. Could tri-jets be interpreted in terms of decays of M89 quarks to three ordinary quarks?

3+3 jets are observed and they correspond to 3 quarks and antiquarks. If one takes 3-jet excess seriously it seems that one has to assume a fermion decaying to 3 quarks or two quarks and antiquark. All these quarks could be light (u,d,s type quarks).

Could M89 quarks decaying to three M107 (ordinary) quarks (q89→ q107q107q*107) be in question? If this were the case the 9-jets might allow interpretation as decays of M89 proton or neutron with mass which from naive scaling would be 512× .94 GeV ≈ 481 GeV resulting when each quark the nucleon decays to three ordinary quarks. Nona-jets would serve as a unique signature for the production of M89 baryons!

M89 quarks must decay somehow to ordinary quarks.

  1. The simplest guess is that the transformation q89 → q107q107q*107 begins with the decay q89→ q107 + g89. Here g89 can be virtual.

  2. This would be followed by g89→ q107+q*107. The final state would consist of two quarks and one antiquark giving rise to tri-jet. The decay of M89 gluon could produce all quark families democratically apart from phase space factors larger for light quarks. This would produce 3+3 jets with a slight dominance of light quark 3-jets.

There are two options to consider. The first option corresponds to a production of a pair of on mass shell M89 quarks with mass around 385 GeV (resonance option) and second option to a production of a pair of virtual M89 quarks suggested by the wide distribution of tri-jets.

  1. Could the resonance interpretation make sense? Can the average 3-jet mass about 385 GeV correspond to the mass of M89 quark? The formulas m(π89)= 21/2m(u89) (mass squared is additive) together with m(π89)= 144 GeV would give m(u89) ≈ 101.8 GeV. Unfortunately the mass proposed for the gluino is almost 4 times higher. The naive scaling by factor 512 for charmed quark mass m(c107)= 1.29 GeV would give 660.5 GeV, which is quite too high. It seems very difficult to find any reasonable interpretation in terms of decays of on mass shell M89 quarks with mass around 385 GeV.

  2. One can however consider completely different interpretation. From figure 1 of the CMS preprint one learns that the distribution of 3-jet masses is very wide beginning around 75 GeV (certainly consistent with 72 GeV, which is one half of the predicted mass 144 GeV of M89 pion) for all triplets and slightly below 100 GeV for selected triplets.

    Could one interpret the situation without selection by assuming that a pair of M89 quarks forming a virtual M89 pion is produced just as the naive expectation that the old-fashioned proton-pion picture could make sense at "low" energies (using of course M89 QCD Λ as a natural mass scale) also for M89 physics. The total mass of M89 quark pair would be above 144 GeV and its decay to virtual M89 quark pair would give quark pair with quark masses above 72 GeV. Could the selected events with total 3-jet mass above 100 GeV correspond to the production of a virtual M89 quark pair?

To sum up, if one takes the indications for 3-jets seriously, the interpretation in terms of M89 hadron physics is the most plausible TGD option. I am unable to say anything about the 9-jet article but 9-jets would serve as a unique and very dramatic signature of M89 baryons: the naive prediction for the mass of M89 nucleon is 481 GeV.

For details and background see the article Is the new boson reported by CDF pion of scaled up variant of hadron physics? and the chapter New particle physics predicted by TGD: part I of "p-Adic Length Scale Hypothesis and Dark Matter Hierarchy".

8 Comments:

At 2:00 PM, Blogger hamed said...

Hello Matti,
I have started to learn tgd theory seriously recently and I am more anxious to continue it, day to day. (Although learning tgd is very difficult for a graduate student of physics :) )
I am sorry for physicists who are aware of the existence of your theory but their philosophical preconceptions are prevented from accepting the truth. But I know there are some physicists that don’t aware of your theory (as I ask from some of them in my country Iran, and I am efforting to inform them of this theory :) )
I belief in the beginnings of a scientific revolution in the years ahead because of the theory of tgd. And it leads to Failure of materialistic viewpoint of scientists.
I’d like to know what is your belief about god or religion? And How does your theory affect your belief in them?

 
At 7:25 PM, Anonymous matpitka@luukku.com said...

I wish best luck in your enterprise. It will not be easy.
At the age of 61 I still sometime find myself dreaming about the possibility of teaching my life work but I of course know that this is not possible in this academic world;-).

Instead of God I would speak of divine and avoid giving any name for it. Quantum jump involves experience of free will, it is not predictable but the outcome is not random. Quantum jump re-creating the entire 4-D universe would be the divine giving rise to evolution. Quantum jump would be the basic building brick of conscious experience.

For scientists the most important thing is that this view about quantum jump resolves the basic problems of quantum measurement theory and leads to the understanding of evolution.

 
At 10:21 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

Hamed, if you wish you can talk to me. This man is hopeless in his formulations :) But I am a biologist, so maybe you can more than me?

I begin my explanation of TGD now in form of TGD-lessons. I have difficulties to chose between a FB page or my blog as arena. I would want to try FB. Then Matti can be there too?

Matti, this is help, no critique other than the language, and I think I am ready for this now. Let me try.

 
At 11:43 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

Look, a finn, http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/light.pdf

he uses the minimum action for light. This is like your CD-light-cones?

 
At 5:17 AM, Blogger hamed said...

Thanks Matti and Ulla.

 
At 11:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But now a problem is handed over to the philosophers. This
discontinuous existence in space, thus assigned to electrons, is
very unlike the continuous existence of material entities which we
habitually assume as obvious. The electron seems to be borrowing
the character which some people have assigned to the Mahatmas
of Tibet. These electrons, with the correlative protons, are now
conceived as being the fundamental entities out of which the
material bodies of ordinary experience are composed. Accordingly,
if this explanation is allowed, we have to revise all our notions of
the ultimate character of material existence. For when we penetrate to these final entities, this startling discontinuity of spatial
existence discloses itself." (Whitehead 1967, pp. 34—35)

 
At 6:57 PM, Anonymous matpitka@luukku.com said...

To Ulla:

the article talk about least action principle saying that photons in geometric optic approximation travel along
shortest path which is light-like geodesic and in flat space straight line. The claim is that this allows to understand
accelerated expansion in cosmology. Author however talks about geodesics and straight lines as different things. They are one and the same thing in general relativity so that something goes wrong.

Note that in TGD framework "straight lines" would correspond to light-like geodesics of the 8-D imbedding space reducing to those of 4-D Minkowski space. Light-like geodesics would correspond to those of space-time surface.

 
At 1:00 AM, Blogger Ulla said...

Especially for you?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/27/a-cosmic-halloween-gallery-things-that-go-boo-in-the-night/

 

Post a Comment

<< Home