Tuesday, August 09, 2016

Misbehaving b-quarks and proton's magnetic body

Science News tells about misbehaving bottom quarks (see also the ICHEP talk). Or perhaps one should talk about misbehaving b-hadrons - hadrons containing b- quarks. The mis-behavior appears in proton-proton collisions at LHC. This is not the only anomaly associated with proton. The spin of proton is still poorly understood and proton charge radius if quite not what it should be. Now we learn that there are more b-containing hadrons (b-hadrons) in the directions deviating considerably from the direction of proton beam: discrepancy factor is of order two.

How this could reflect the structure of proton? Color magnetic flux tubes are the new TGD based element in the model or proton: could they help? I assign to proton color magnetic flux tubes with size scale much larger than proton size - something like electron Compton length: most of the mass of proton is color magnetic energy associated with these tubes and they define the non-perturbative aspect of hadron physics in TGD framework. For instance, constituent quarks would be valence quarks plus their color flux tubes. Current quarks just the quarks whose masses give rather small contribution to proton mass.

What happens when two protons collide? In cm system the dipolar flux tubes get contracted in the direction of motion by Lorentz contraction. Suppose b-hadrons tend to leave proton along the color magnetic flux tubes (also ordinary em flux tubes could be in question). Lorentz contraction of flux tubes means that they tend to leave in directions orthogonal to the collision axis. Could this explain the misbehavior of b-hadrons?

But why only b-hadrons or some fraction of them should behave in this manner? Why not also lighter hadrons containing c and s? Could this relate to the much smaller size of b-quark defined by its Compton length λ= hbar/m(b) , m(b) = 4.2 GeV, which is much shorter than the Compton length of u-quark (the mass of constituent u quark is something like 300 MeV and the mass of current u quark is few MeVs. Could it be that lighter hadrons do not leave proton along flux tubes? Why? Are these hadrons or corresponding quarks too large to fit (topologically condense) inside protonic flux tube? b-quark is much more massive and has considerably smaller size than say c-quark with mass m(c) = 1.5 GeV and could be able to topologically condense inside the protonic flux tube. c quark should be too large, which suggests that the radius of flux tubes is larger than proton Compton length. This picture conforms with the view of perturbative QCD in which the primary processes take place at parton level. The hadronization would occur in longer time scale and generate the magnetic bodies of outgoing hadrons. The alternative idea that also the color magnetic body of hadron should fit inside the protonic color flux tube is not consistent with this view.

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


Stephen A. Crowley said...

Matti, a little off-topic from the topic of but I was wondering how Aharanov's work/writings/etc relate to yours, as in the in intersection of past and future light-cones, M^8 duality, yada yada.

Btw, your comment about TGD not being given from heaven and you having to work really hard at it jives with this comment by Hardold Edwards in his comment about the Riemann hypotheis where he states that Riemann's insight was stupendenous but not supernatural. Page 166 of his book on the topic

Matpitka6@gmail.com said...

The best know to me part of Aharonov's work is about what happens in magnetic field, which is non-vanishing only say along flux tube. Charged particle moving in a region without magnetic field but necessarily with non-vanishing vector potential experiences the field in the sense that the phase got by particle wave moving around circle is non-trivial. This effect is purely quantal and actually geometric: mathematically the same effect is in question as in parallel translation of a vector around closed curve at sphere. Classical particle experiences no effect since magnetic field vanishes. This effect is completely general and also present in TGD. The TGD based ideas that you mentioned are not related to this idea in any manner.

Matpitka6@gmail.com said...

TGD is not from heaven. There are - I think handful of simple arguments leading to TGD. One is the argument baesd on the need of to have energy and momentum as Noether charges. TGD follows with five lines from this argument. I believe that Riemanns deep insight led to Riemann hypothesis naturally. I do not know how much he knew about zeros: he could not use any supercomputers.

Did Riemann already demonstrate that Zeta is real along the critical line? R demonstrated the functional equation and I think that it implies reality. This implies that zeta must have zeros along it since the condition that zeta vanishes is single condition for the imaginary part of zeta. Elsewhere vanishing demands two additional conditions and it is much less plausible that they can be satisfied. RH is thus very natural if R knew that zeta is real along critical line.

Stephen A. Crowley said...



i too think of the effect named after him but was curious to see some articles about measurement he is mentioned / interviewed in and he worked closely with Bohm