|
|
The history of theoretical work on strong interactions contains some
successful predictions. Two examples are mentioned below:
-
In the early 60s of the previous
century, M. Gell-Mann and Y. Ne'eman have independently predicted the
existence of the Ω- baryon. The analysis assumes the
existence of spin-1/2 "quarks" that define hadronic structure.
The Ω- baryon was discovered
very few years later. This discovery is regarded as a triumf of the
spin-1/2 quark structure of hadrons.
-
Few years later, the Bjorken and Feynman analysis of deep inelastic
electron-proton collision have defined conditions for experimental results
that prove the existence of point-like "partons" in the proton.
The predictions have been very quickly
confirmed by experiments. This outcome provides a dynamical confirmation
for the existence of spin-1/2 point-like components in the
proton. Thus, the dynamical "partons" are the structural "quarks". Now
these constituents are known by the name "quarks".
It is widely accepted that these
successful works establish a remarkable proof of physical properties of
hadrons. For this reason, they have quickly found their way into textbooks and are
now studied in courses on particle physics. Thus, at present there is no
doubt about the existence of quarks and of their main properties.
A general theory of strong interaction, called Quantum-Chromo-Dynamics (QCD),
has been published in the early 70s of the previous century. This theory
is now a part of the Standard Model, and accounts for its strong interaction
sector. Unlike the cases mentioned in the two previous items, QCD has some
predictions that have not been confirmed for several decades. Here
are three examples:
-
QCD supporters have argued that pentaquarks should have been discovered in
the experiment [1,2]. These objects are strongly bound states of a nucleon and
a meson. In spite of more than two decades of search carried out by a
quite large number of teams, the existence of strongly bound pentaquark has
not been established [3].
An article explaining why the recent CERN declaration of the
pentaquark discovery is irrelevant to the QCD pentaquark definition
can be found
here.
-
QCD supporters have argued that stable nuggets
made of electrically neutral baryons,
each of which resembles the Λ baryon, should exist [4]. This kind of
matter is called Strange Quark Matter (SQM).
In spite of more than two decades of search carried out by a quite large
number of teams, the existence of SQM has not been established [5].
-
QCD supporters have argued that a kind of particle called glueball should be
observed in experiments [6].
In spite of more than three decades of search carried out by a quite large
number of teams, the existence of glueballs has not been established [6].
The problematic A-C issues have been derived from inherent QCD
properties. Moreover, during the long period elapsed since their
initial presentation, QCD supporters continue to believe in
the validity of the theoretical basis
of the A-C claims and of the technical procedures used for their
derivation. The continued experimental attempts aiming to find
these effects indicate the correctness of this description
of the A-C issues' status.
This set of evidence makes a basis for the following questions:
-
Quality Assurance (QA) is an important task of human organizations. Computer
programmers dedicate a considerable part of their time for this task and a
special word - debugging - has been coined for describing it. Following the
above mentioned QCD's A-C failures, one wonders why Standard Model supporters
have not organized an open and free discussion aiming to examine QCD's validity?
-
The first paragraph of the
Standard Model Wikipedia article contained (on February 28, 2010) the
following statement: "Every high energy physics experiment carried out
since the mid-20th century has eventually yielded findings consistent with
the Standard Model." Considering the above mentioned QCD's A-C failures, one
wonders whether or not this statement really holds water?
References:
[1] C. Gignoux, B. Silvestre-Brac and J. M. Richard, Phys. Lett. 193,
323 1987.
[2] H. J. Lipkin, Phys. Lett. 195, 484 1987.
[3]
C.G. Wohl, in the 2009 report of PDG.
[4] E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 30, 272 1984
[5] K. Han, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 092302 (2009).
[6] See here:
V. Crede and C. A. Meyer
| |
