Thursday, August 04, 2016

Nothing new at LHC?

Lubos Motl has a commentary about articles released after ICHEP 2016 conference held in Chicago. Experimentalists tell "Nothing going beyond standard model". Depressing! Especially so because theorists have "known" that the New Physics must be there!

What looks strange from TGD point of view that alarge number of mesons of M89 =289-1 hadron physics predicted by TGD - scaled up variants of mesons of ordinary hadron physics (to which I assign Mersenne prime M107 =2107-1) appeared in the older data at lower energies as bumps with the predicted masses (see this.

Is there a nasty cosmic conspiracy to ridicule me;-) . Or are the produced mesons - at least the light ones indeed M89 mesons with large heff=n× h - as assumed in the model for the string like objects observed already at RHIC and later at LHC - and produced only at quantum criticality, which would be lost at higher energies. Of course not a single, experimentalist or theorist would take this seriously! Could this explanation apply to 750 GeV bump as I thought so first? No! This bump was announced in December 2015 on basis of the first analysis of data gathered since May 15 2015 (see this). Thus the diphoton bump that I identified as M89 eta meson is lost if one takes the results of analysics as final word.

One should of course give up so easily. If the production mechanism is same as for electro-pion (see this), the production amplitude is by anomaly considerations proportional to the Fourier transform of the classical "instanton density" I= E• B. In head-on collisions one tends to have I=0 because E (nearly radial in cylindrical coordinates) and B (field lines rotating around z-axis) for given proton are orthogonal and differ only apart from sign factors when the protons are in same position. For peripheral collisions in which also strange looking production of string like configurations parallel to beams was observed in both heavy ion and proton-proton collisions, E1• B2 can be vanishing as one can understand by figuring out what the electric and magnetic fields lookl ike in the cm coordinates. There is clearly a kind of quantum criticality involved also in this sense. Could these events be lost by posing reasonable looking constraints on the production mechanism or kinematical cutoff? But why the first analysis would have shown the presence of these events? Have some criteria changed?

Addition:To find M89 pseudoscalars one should study peripheral collisions in which protons do not collide quite head-on and in which M89 pseudoscalars could be generated by em instanton mechanism. In peripheral situation it is easy to measure the energy emitted as particles since strong interactions are effectively absent - only the E•B interaction plus standard em interaction if TGD view is right. Unfortunately peripheral collisions are undesired since beams are deflected from head-on course! These events are however detected but data end up to trash bin usually as also deflected protons!! Luckily, Risto Orava's team (see this and this) is studying just those p-p collisions, which are peripheral! It would be wonderful if they would find Cernettes and maybe also other M89 pseudo-scalars from the trashbin!

For details see the earlier blog post, the chapter New Physics predicted by TGD: part I of "p-Adic Physics" or the article M89 hadron physics and quantum criticality.

For a summary of the earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.


Post a Comment

<< Home