|
|
Two Higgs related articles can be found here.
For reading an article which describes about half a dozen of different
errors of the Higgs theory
Click here
.
The article linked herein explains why the Higgs boson does not exist.
Click here
and see section 4.
Two kinds of LHC issues are discussed below:
-
For reading a short introductory text
Click here
.
-
For reading some remarks on the Higgs boson declaration
Click here
.
-
For reading some remarks on the March 2013 Higgs news,
Click here
.
-
For reading some remarks on the 125 GeV two γ effect,
Click here
.
-
For reading a review article demonstrating the overwhelming advantage
of the Regular Charge-Monopole Theory over QCD
Click here.
-
For reading an analysis of implications of expected LHC
proton-proton cross section data and of related QCD
problematic issues, see below.
The main elements of the basis for the discussion are listed below. A more
detailed analysis can be found in the references.
- The Regular Charge-Monopole Theory (RCMT) is the main theoretical basis [1,2].
- Quarks carry one (negative) unit of magnetic monopole and baryons have
a core that carries three (positive) units of magnetic monopole [3,4].
Therefore a baryon is a magnetic monopole structure that is analogous
to a nonionized atom. Thus, quarks in a baryon are analogous to
electrons in an atom.
- A usage of very few fundamental experimental data enables
this approach to
provides an interpretation
for not a very small number of properties of strongly interacting
particles [3-5].
-
Some experimental data indicate that the baryonic core contains closed shells of
quarks, each of which is
analogous to a closed shell of electrons in an atom [4]. Thus, the three valence
quarks of a baryon are analogous to valence electrons of an atom and a similar
correspondence holds between the closed shells of an atom and a baryon,
respectively.
The first problem to be discussed here is the specific structure of the baryonic closed
shells of quarks. One may expect that the situation takes the simplest case and that the
core's closed shells consist of just two
u quarks and two d quarks that occupy an S shell. The other extreme is
the case where the baryon is analogous to a very heavy atom and the baryonic core contains
many closed shells of quarks. (Below, finding the actual structure
of the baryonic core is called Problem A.)
The presently known proton-proton (denoted p-p)
cross section data which is depicted
in fig. 1 is used for describing the relevance of the LHC future data to Problem A.
Figure 1: A qualitative description of
the pre-LHC p-p cross section versus the
laboratory momentum P. Axes are drawn in a logarithmic scale.
The continuous line denotes
elastic cross section and the broken line denotes total cross section.
(The accurate figure can be found in [6] -
click here
and see p. 12). Points A-E help the discussion (see text).
Before proceeding further, let us examine the data of fig. 1.
This figure demonstrates dramatic differences between the p-p
data and the corresponding deep inelastic electron-proton (denoted e-p) data.
Thus, the e-p total cross section
decreases with momentum like 1/p2 [7],
whereas the p-p data increases for higher energies. Another issue
is the relative part of elastic scattering events. It turns out that for a very high energy,
the e-p elastic events take a negligible part of the total
scattering events [7]. On the other hand, in the case of the corresponding
p-p scattering, fig. 1 proves that elastic events take about 15% of the
total scattering events. The last property proves that a proton contains
a quite solid component that can take the heavy blow of the collision
and leave each of the two colliding
protons intact. The fact that this component is undetected
in an e-p scattering, proves that it is a spinless electrically neutral component.
This outcome provides a very strong support for the RCMT interpretation of
hadrons, where baryons have a core [3-5].
The elastic and total cross section depicted in fig. 1 were
published in the annual PDG report for quite a few years.
It is explained later in this text why these
plots certainly disprove QCD.
It turns out that for an unclear reason, since 2013 this
figure is not included in the PDG annual report any more. In particular,
the overall elastic p-p plot has been removed altogether.
Since people mainly use the most recent report, they
cannot see that for high energy
the relative portion of the elastic p-p
cross section stops decreasing and that its absolute value
begins to increase.
Relying on analogous properties of atomic physics, one justifies the usage of
the following properties for evaluating the proton structure:
- Quarks (namely, negative monopoles) screen the potential (and the field) of
inner positively charged monopoles. This effect is dual to screening of the
nuclear charge by atomic electrons.
Let us examine a point r at the proton's rest frame.
Here screening variation associated with quarks' closed shells,
depends on the probability of finding quarks at the
appropriate geometrical spherical shell. Evidently, the volume of this spherical shell
tend to zero together with r.
Hence, screening effects are quite negligible at regions where the
distance to the center is small enough.
- An analogue of the Franck-Hertz effect takes place. In particular, quarks of
closed shells of the baryonic
core behave as inert objects for cases where the
projectile's energy is smaller than the appropriate threshold.
Using the foregoing physical ideas, one can address the elastic scattering
data of fig. 1 and describe the physical basis for Problem A.
-
The decrease of the cross section on the left hand side of point A of
fig. 1 represents the ordinary Coulomb interaction between the protons'
electric charge. Here a Rutherford-like formula holds and the
cross section decreases like 1/p2.
-
At the region of points A,B,
the undulating shape of the cross section line
represents the rapidly varying
nuclear interactions.
-
The decreasing line between points B,C represents the region where a screening
effect of the valence quarks takes place. This effect makes the line less steep than the
Coulomb related line on the left hand side of point A of fig. 1.
-
The increase of the line on the right hand side
of point C of fig. 1 is a proof of the existence of
inner closed quark shells
in the proton. Indeed, screening effects
of the valence quarks decrease for a decreasing distance to
the proton's center. Thus,
without inner quark shells, the steepness of the
decreasing interval of the line between points B,C
of fig. 1, is expected to increase near point C and
it should approach
the Coulomb steepness seen on the left hand side of
point A of the fig. 1. This expection clearly contradicts the
data. Therefore, one has to look for something else.
Now, the inner closed shells of
quarks certainly make a quite rigid object. Such an object
can take the heavy blow of a core-core collision and
end up with an elastic scattering.
This property explains why the elastic cross section
line increases on the right hand side of point C
of the fig. 1. It is interesting
to note that at this energy region one also finds an
increase of the total cross
section [6]. The latter effect is analogous
to the Franck-Hertz effect in atoms. Here the
high energy collision ejects quarks from the
inner shells, a process which is analogous
to a deep inelastic e-p process.
At this point, one can evaluate the relevance of the expected LHC data to
Problem A. Thus, if the closed shells
contain a small number of quarks
then, for higher energies,
their screening effect as well as the rigidity of such a closed shell
are expected to fade away and the elastic cross section
line will start to decrease and pass near the open circle denoted
by the letter D.
If, on the other hand, there are many closed shells
containing many quarks then
the line will continue to increase and pass near the gray circle, denoted
by the letter E. The LHC data will provide information on this issue.
Let us turn to QCD and the data of fig. 1. Claims stating that QCD cannot explain
these data have been published in the literature in the last decade [8]. Indeed,
according to QCD, a proton consists of quarks and gluons. Thus, one finds that
the following points indicate very serious difficulties of QCD:
-
Deep inelastic e-p scattering
proves that for a very high energy, elastic events
are very rare. It means that in nearly every case,
a quark that is struck violently by an electron makes an inelastic
event. Therefore, one wonders
what is the proton's component that takes the heavy blow
of a high energy p-p collision and leaves the two protons
intact and why this component is
not found in the corresponding e-p scattering?
-
A QCD property called Asymptotic Freedom [9] states that
the interaction strength tends to zero at the small vicinity of a QCD particle.
Thus, at this region, a QCD interaction is certainly much weaker
than the corresponding Coulomb-like interaction.
Therefore, if this aspect of QCD holds then
for very high energies, the p-p
elastic cross section line is expected to manifest a
steeper decrease than that of the Coulomb interaction,
which is seen on the left hand side
of point A of fig. 1. The data represented in fig. 1
shows that for high energy the line increases.
Hence, the data contradict this QCD property.
-
A general argument. At point C of fig. 1,
the elastic cross section line changes its inclination. Here it
stops decreasing and begins to increase. This effect proves that for this energy,
something new shows up in the proton. Now, QCD states that
quarks and gluons are elementary
particles that move quite freely inside the proton.
Therefore, one wonders how can QCD explain why
a new effect arises for this energy?
References:
[1] E. Comay Nuovo Cimento, B80, 159 (1984).
click here.
[2] E. Comay Nuovo Cimento, B110, 1347 (1995).
click here.
[3] E. Comay
A Regular Theory of Magnetic Monopoles and Its Implications in
Has the Last Word Been Said on Classical Electrodynamics?
ed. A. Chubykalo, V. Onoochin, A. Espinoza and R. Smirnov-Rueda
(Rinton Press, Paramus, NJ, 2004).
click here.
[4] E. Comay
Apeiron, 16, 1 (2009).
click here
and its sequel:
E. Comay,
click here.
[5] See the appropriate items at the linked page.
click here.
[6] See p. 12 of the PDG publication.
click here.
[7] D. H. Perkins, Introduction to high energy physics (Addison, Menlo Park,
1987).
[8] For reading an article,
click here.
[9] H. Frauenfelder and E. M. Henley, Subatomic Physics (Prentics,
New Jersey, 1991).
| |