Saturday, October 29, 2011

More about strange charged trilepton events

I already told about indications for strange charged tri-lepton events at CMS. The inspiration came from a posting CMS sees SUSY-like tri-lepton excesses of Lubos.

Only a few days later both Tommaso and Lubos discussed a quite recent paper telling about charged tri-lepton events observed at CMS.

  1. From Tommaso's posting one learns that three charged leptons with total mass near to Z0 mass have been observed. Charge conservation of course requires fourth charged lepton if the particles originate in the decay of Z0 as assumed and Tommaso argues that this lepton has so low energy that it is not detected. This kind of lepton could results in an energy asymmetric decay of photon. The assumption that Z0 is the decaying particle might be however un-necessarily strong: it could be quite well W with almost the same mass. In this case charge conservation allows genuine charged tri-lepton event. The discussion of my earlier posting suggests the decay W→ sW+sZ to be the source of charged tri-lepton events.

  2. The authors of the paper propose that the reaction could be initiated by a decay of squark or gluino and necessarily involving R-parity breaking. There are two possibile options for R-parity breaking allowed by proton stability depending on whether it conserves lepton or baryon number. For lepton number violating option intermediate particle is neutralino (lightest sparticle which is stable in R-parity breaking scenarios ) and for baryon number violating scenatior bino or higgsino. The R-parity violating decay of lightest spartner (neutral) would yield slepton-lepton pair and the R-parity violating decay of slepton a lepton pair plus neutrino. This would produce instead single observed lepton charged tri-lepton state. The authors do not give enough details to make possible for a non-professional to deduce what the detailed model for the process really is.

It is interesting to consider the situation in TGD framework in light of the crucial additional data (the three charged leptons have mass rather near to that of Z0 and therefore to that of W).

  1. The decay of W → sW +sZ with the decays sW and sZ proceeding in either of the two manners discussed in the previous posting would predict that the total mass of all particles produced is near to W mass (and therefore Z mass) and also why one obtains genuine charged tri-lepton states. The problem is that missing energy in the form of neutrinos and neutral sparticles is present and it is not at all clear why this energy should be small.

  2. An option not discussed discussed in the previous posting is the decay W→ sν+L followed by the decay sν→ L+sW followed by sW→ L+sν would not break R-parity and would produce sν. Total energy would correspond to W mass but it is not clear why the missing energy assigned with sν should be small.

  3. R-parity violation predicted by TGD however allows also to consider the direct decay sνrarr; L++L- so that there would be no missing energy. One could say that the decay is the reversal of a process in which L++L- annihilates to a sν identifiable as a pair of neutrino and right-handed neutrino at microscopic level. All standard model quantum numbers would be conserved.

In TGD framework R-parity violation is a prediction of the theory and it would not violate either baryon or lepton number conservation. There is no need to assume undetected charged lepton since charge conservation allows charged tri-lepton final state as such without any missing energy. Obviously the TGD based model is by several orders of magnitude simpler than the model based on standard SUSY.

For details and background see the chapter New particle physics predicted by TGD: part I of "p-Adic Length Scale Hypothesis and Dark Matter Hierarchy".


At 10:02 AM, Blogger ThePeSla said...


How explicitly does the TGD framework show R-parity violations?

The PeSla

At 8:53 PM, Anonymous said...

In TGD sfermion is obtained from particle by to the wormhole throat carrying fermion (antifermion) right-handed antineutrino (neutrino). An analogous recipe allows also to construct gauginos for which the total quantum numbers are determined by a fermion pair at opposite throats of wormhole contact..

The basic message is that in TGD approximate SUSY has *microscopic* description due to the fact that point like particle is replaced with partonic 2-surface (or several of them actually). Every step of progress in physics means increased resolution of the microscope;-): if I only could teach this to the colleagues!

R-parity violation is reflected via the decays of sparticles to particles. The states with odd R-parity- sparticles- can decay to particle and neutrino so that initial state has R-parity -1 and final state R-parity 1.

The decay of sneutrino to charged lepton pair is a slightly more general decay allowed by the standard conservation laws but breaks R-parity.

Microscopically it could correspond to R-parity breaking decay neutrino and antineutrino which exchange virtual W boson to transform to charged lepton pair.

In standard SUSY proposal the needed R-parity violation would require non-conservation of either baryon number of lepton number: if both are violated, proton lifetime would be quite too short. Already this makes the model hopelessly ad hoc and it will be a matter of year or two when it is dead and buried.

At 12:28 PM, Blogger ThePeSla said...


Thank you for the reply.

The idea of sparticles seems to me a little vague to base theories on.

I agree that the planes are more fundamental than just a point like idea- "that in a sense a quantum grounding is a prime one..." more or less as in your next postings.

But you have said, in the idea of quantum uncertainty that some particle values approach a p-adic prime so not necessarily an absolute value of such a prime.

Thus in the question of what is a number the class idea of an integer can be a rather quantum concept yet have discrete values to great accuracy.

Yes this raises issues of non-conservation and proton lifetimes- but is this not a question at remote cosmology? In any case non-conservation is a matter of something more discrete as measure (Rowlands)and outside of something continuous.

So in the TGD framework do you think such privileged parity asymmetry is an intrinsic property of the physics of space- or just a phenomenon resulting from such laws of particles?

The PeSla

At 7:46 PM, Anonymous said...

SUSY and R-parity are precisely defined notions as also R-parity conservation. There is of course standard SUSY and R-parity violation in this framework and there is SUSY and R-parity violation according to TGD. The difference is that in TGD there is no need to break the symmetries of standard model: R-parity violation is automatic as also the violation of SUSY.

Proton stablity is absolutely essential: practically all competitors of TGD predict that proton decays, their common problem is to invent mechanisms preventing this to happen to fast since we have stringent experimental bounds on proton life time.

In TGD framework baryon and lepton numbers are separately conserved: this is one of the basic predictions of TGD distinguishing it from competitors and indeed: contrary to the expectations proton has refused to decay.

This is again one of the many observations put under the rug: Particle Data Tables even say that proton is unstable but admits that decays have not been observed! This is politics in the disguise of science! At the era of Big Science intellectual honesty has not been exactly the manner to build successful career! Intelligent elbows do it much more effectively.

At 8:04 AM, Blogger ThePeSla said...


In some sense I think in an infinite view of the universe protons would be immortal too- and I approve your explanation (as you said no observation to date) as one way. If these do decay at the end and beginning of some finite time (unlikely in my framework) it would be beyond the physical universe(s) and more physics than we now dream.

I post here today because you interest in primes and thinking about questions I asked you and all we have in common for some things like the powers of 2, I posted today (state of the vision) some interesting plots of primes and their compliments (to 257 anyway) of which you may find of interest or see what I do not there.

The PeSla


Post a Comment

<< Home