View Full Version : Calculation of Standard Model parameters
Tony Smith
Apr22-04, 03:20 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In a post to sci.physics.strings Lubos Motl asked\n\n> "... to estimate the probability of the following\n> ... A nontrivial relation between the parameters\n> of the Standard Model will be calculated theoretically by 2030. ...".\n\nAlready in 2004 there is a CERN CDS preprint EXT-2004-031 at\n\nhttp://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=730325&ln=en\n\nthat constructs a specific string theory model that contains\nthe same representation of the Standard Model\nthat is used in physics/0207095 at\n\nhttp://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0207095\n\nto do tree-level calculations of the Standard Model\nforce strengths, lepton masses, constituent quark masses,\nand Kobayashi-Maskawa parameters.\n\nTherefore, since 2004 precedes 2030, the probability for a\nstring theoretical calculation of Standard Model parameters\nby 2030 is 1.\n\nTony Smith\n\n===========\n[Moderator\'s note: Well, that sounds very optimistic and the paper is\nvery colorful (although not in TeX). I am not sure whether it will\nconvince others. Good luck, LM]\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In a post to sci.physics.strings Lubos Motl asked
> "... to estimate the probability of the following
> ... A nontrivial relation between the parameters
> of the Standard Model will be calculated theoretically by 2030. ...".
Already in 2004 there is a CERN CDS preprint EXT-2004-031 at
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=730325&ln=en
that constructs a specific string theory model that contains
the same representation of the Standard Model
that is used in http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0207095 at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0207095
to do tree-level calculations of the Standard Model
force strengths, lepton masses, constituent quark masses,
and Kobayashi-Maskawa parameters.
Therefore, since 2004 precedes 2030, the probability for a
string theoretical calculation of Standard Model parameters
by 2030 is 1.
Tony Smith
===========
[Moderator's note: Well, that sounds very optimistic and the paper is
very colorful (although not in TeX). I am not sure whether it will
convince others. Good luck, LM]
Matthew Nobes
Apr23-04, 02:30 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Tony Smith <smi123th@innerx.com> wrote in message news:<83571a1e.0404221111.73743116-100000@posting.google.com>...\n\n> In a post to sci.physics.strings Lubos Motl asked\n>\n> > "... to estimate the probability of the following\n> > ... A nontrivial relation between the parameters\n> > of the Standard Model will be calculated theoretically by 2030. ...".\n[snip]\n> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0207095\n>\n> to do tree-level calculations of the Standard Model\n> force strengths, lepton masses, constituent quark masses,\n> and Kobayashi-Maskawa parameters.\n>\n> Therefore, since 2004 precedes 2030, the probability for a\n> string theoretical calculation of Standard Model parameters\n> by 2030 is 1.\n\nI\'m assuming Lubos meant they have to get the numbers right, and be a\nproper acutal calculation. Your paper is neither. To take one example,\nwith which I\'m familier, your "calculation" of the strong coupling\nconstant is, as far as I can tell, bunk.\n\nYou start with a calculation of alpha_s at 0.245 GeV. Then, you seem to\napply perturbative QCD to run this coupling up. I assure you that at 245\nMeV, the perturbative formulas do not apply.\n\nUndaunted, you find a value at 91 GeV of 0.106. This is many (many many\nmany) sigma away from the world average of 0.1181(2).\n\nThen, you say\n\n"Taking other effects, such as Nonperturbative QCD, into account, should\ngive a Color Force Strength of about 0.125 at about 91 GeV"\n\n"Should give"? And how, *exactly* do you propose to take nonperturbative\nQCD into account? Having been involved in an actual nonperturbative QCD\ncalculation of alpha_s I am eager to learn the procedure for doing this\nthat is so trivial it does not require an explanation.\n\n> [Moderator\'s note: Well, that sounds very optimistic and the paper is\n> very colorful (although not in TeX). I am not sure whether it will\n> convince others. Good luck, LM]\n\nBeyond optimistic, it sounds wrong.\n\nJust to pick a three numbers from the abstract,\n\nstrong coupling constant = 0.123 (world average is 0.1181(2))\ntau mass = 1.88 GeV (world average 1.77703(30) GeV)\nmuon mass = 104.8 (world average 105.658357(5) MeV)\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Tony Smith <smi123th@innerx.com> wrote in message news:<83571a1e.0404221111.73743116-100000@posting.google.com>...
> In a post to sci.physics.strings Lubos Motl asked
>
> > "... to estimate the probability of the following
> > ... A nontrivial relation between the parameters
> > of the Standard Model will be calculated theoretically by 2030. ...".
[snip]
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0207095
>
> to do tree-level calculations of the Standard Model
> force strengths, lepton masses, constituent quark masses,
> and Kobayashi-Maskawa parameters.
>
> Therefore, since 2004 precedes 2030, the probability for a
> string theoretical calculation of Standard Model parameters
> by 2030 is 1.
I'm assuming Lubos meant they have to get the numbers right, and be a
proper acutal calculation. Your paper is neither. To take one example,
with which I'm familier, your "calculation" of the strong coupling
constant is, as far as I can tell, bunk.
You start with a calculation of \alpha_s at .245 GeV. Then, you seem to
apply perturbative QCD to run this coupling up. I assure you that at 245
MeV, the perturbative formulas do not apply.
Undaunted, you find a value at 91 GeV of .106. This is many (many many
many) \sigma away from the world average of .1181(2).
Then, you say
"Taking other effects, such as Nonperturbative QCD, into account, should
give a Color Force Strength of about .125 at about 91 GeV"
"Should give"? And how, *exactly* do you propose to take nonperturbative
QCD into account? Having been involved in an actual nonperturbative QCD
calculation of \alpha_s I am eager to learn the procedure for doing this
that is so trivial it does not require an explanation.
> [Moderator's note: Well, that sounds very optimistic and the paper is
> very colorful (although not in TeX). I am not sure whether it will
> convince others. Good luck, LM]
Beyond optimistic, it sounds wrong.
Just to pick a three numbers from the abstract,
strong coupling constant = .123 (world average is .1181(2))
\tau mass = 1.88 GeV (world average 1.77703(30) GeV)
muon mass = 104.8 (world average 105.658357(5) MeV)
Tony Smith
Apr24-04, 09:45 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Matthew Nobes wrote\n\n>... Your paper ... sounds wrong.\n> Just to pick a three numbers from the abstract,\n> strong coupling constant = 0.123 (world average is 0.1181(2))\n> tau mass = 1.88 GeV (world average 1.77703(30) GeV)\n> muon mass = 104.8 (world average 105.658357(5) MeV)\n>...\n\nMatthew Nobes is correct that the tree-level calculations\nin my paper do not all agree with currently accepted experimental\nvalues within currently accepted error bars.\n\nWhat I think is interesting is that my unified model leads\nto tree-level calculations of a the parameters of the Standard\nModel, most of which are within 10% or so of currently accepted values,\nand some of which are much closer.\n\nThe particle masses are:\n* Me-neutrino = Mmu-neutrino = Mtau-neutrino = 0 (tree-level)\n* Me = 0.5110 MeV\n* Md = Mu = 312.8 MeV (constituent quark mass)\n* Mmu = 104.8 MeV\n* Ms = 625 MeV (constituent quark mass)\n* Mc = 2.09 GeV (constituent quark mass)\n* Mtau = 1.88 GeV\n* Mb = 5.63 GeV (constituent quark mass)\n* Mt = 130 GeV (constituent Truth Quark mass)\n* W+ mass = W- mass = 80.326 GeV\n* Z0 mass = 91.862 GeV\n* Higgs mass = 145.8 GeV\n* weak force - Higgs VEV = 252.5 GeV (assumed, since ratios are calculated)\n\nThe force strengths are:\n* Gravitational G = (Ggravity)(Mproton)^2 = 5 x 10^(-39) (assumed,\nsince ratios are calculated)\n* electromagnetic fine structure constant = 1/137.03608\n* Gfermi = (Gweak)(Mproton)^2 = 1.02 x 10^(-5)\n* color force strength = 0.6286 (at 0.245 GeV) - perturbative QCD\nrunning gives\n* color force strength = 0.167 (at 5.3 GeV)\n* color force strength = 0.121 (at 34 GeV)\n* color force strength = 0.106 (at 91 GeV)\n* If Nonperturbative QCD and other things are taken into account,\nthen the color force strength may be higher (see discussion below).\n\nThe Kobayashi-Maskawa parameters\nfor W+ and W- charged weak boson processes are:\nd s b\nu 0.975 0.222 0.00249 -0.00388i\nc -0.222 -0.000161i 0.974 -0.0000365i 0.0423\nt 0.00698 -0.00378i -0.0418 -0.00086i 0.999\nThe phase angle d13 is taken to be 1 radian.\n\nAs far as I know,\nit is the only unified model that allows calculation of so many\nparameters all in the same "ball-park" as observed values,\nso, to me,\nsuch results indicate that the fundamental structures of\nmy model are likely to be good representations of realistic physics.\n\nIt is my opinion that more accurate calculations than tree-level\nwould be nice and useful.\n\nFor instance, with respect to the color force strength,\nMatthew Nobes goes on to ask:\n>.. how, *exactly* do you propose to take nonperturbative\n>QCD into account? ...\n\nI do not know how to do exact nonperturbative calculations,\nso it is fair for Matthew Nobes to regard my crude ideas as\nto how my calculations might be affected by nonperturbative\nphenomena as wishful speculation on my part.\nOne (perhaps dated) motivation for my crude idea/speculation\nis the paper of Shifman at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9501222\nin which Shifman said:\n"... The value of alpha_s (M_Z) emerging from the so called\nglobal fits based mainly on the data at the Z peak (and assuming\nthe standard model) is three standard deviations higher\nthan the one stemming from the low-energy phenomenology. ...".\nPatrascioiu and Seiler in http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9609292\nsaid "... the running of alpha_s predicted by perturbation (PT) theory\nis not correctly describing the accelerator experiments at the highest\nenergies. A natural explanation is provided by the authors\' 1992\nproposal that in fact the true running predicted by the nonperturbatively\ndefined lattice QCD is different ...".\n\nThe Patrascioiu and Seiler paper indicates that my crude use\nof simple perturbative QCD running is (as Matthew Nobes noted)\nnot correct. If you look at Figure 2 of their paper, you see\nthat their "possible modified running of alpha_s" curve is\nat 100 GeV close to the 0.12 range,\nwhile their 2-loop PT curve is close to the 0.10 range of my\ncrude perturbative calculation.\nThat is why I think (speculate?) that nonperturbative effects\nmight bring calculations of my model closer to observations.\n\nI should also note that I have some fear that it may be difficult\nto do very accurate nonperturbative QCD calculations,\nbased in part on what Morozov and Niemi say in\nhttp://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0304178\n"... The field theoretical renormalization group equations\nhave many common features with the equations of dynamical systems.\n.... we propose that besides isolated fixed points,\nthe couplings in a renormalizable field theory may also flow towards\nmore general, even fractal attractors.\nThis could lead to Big Mess scenarios ... ".\n\nIn conclusion,\nI am not contending that my tree-level calculations are in\nexact agreement with currently accepted observations.\n\nI am contending that the overall approximate agreement of\nmy calculations with observations of many parameters\ndoes indicate that the fundamental structure of my physics model\nis sound.\n\nTony Smith\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Matthew Nobes wrote
>... Your paper ... sounds wrong.
> Just to pick a three numbers from the abstract,
> strong coupling constant = .123 (world average is .1181(2))
> \tau mass = 1.88 GeV (world average 1.77703(30) GeV)
> muon mass = 104.8 (world average 105.658357(5) MeV)
>...
Matthew Nobes is correct that the tree-level calculations
in my paper do not all agree with currently accepted experimental
values within currently accepted error bars.
What I think is interesting is that my unified model leads
to tree-level calculations of a the parameters of the Standard
Model, most of which are within 10% or so of currently accepted values,
and some of which are much closer.
The particle masses are:
* Me-neutrino = Mmu-neutrino = Mtau-neutrino = (tree-level)
* Me = .5110 MeV
* Md = \Mu = 312.8 MeV (constituent quark mass)
* Mmu = 104.8 MeV
* Ms = 625 MeV (constituent quark mass)
* Mc = 2.09 GeV (constituent quark mass)
* Mtau = 1.88 GeV
* Mb = 5.63 GeV (constituent quark mass)
* Mt = 130 GeV (constituent Truth Quark mass)
* W+ mass = W- mass = 80.326 GeV
* Z0 mass = 91.862 GeV
* Higgs mass = 145.8 GeV
* weak force - Higgs VEV = 252.5 GeV (assumed, since ratios are calculated)
The force strengths are:
* Gravitational G = (Ggravity)(Mproton)^2 = 5 x 10^(-39) (assumed,
since ratios are calculated)
* electromagnetic fine structure constant = 1/137.03608
* Gfermi = (Gweak)(Mproton)^2 = 1.02 x 10^(-5)
* color force strength = .6286 (at .245 GeV) - perturbative QCD
running gives
* color force strength = .167 (at 5.3 GeV)
* color force strength = .121 (at 34 GeV)
* color force strength = .106 (at 91 GeV)
* If Nonperturbative QCD and other things are taken into account,
then the color force strength may be higher (see discussion below).
The Kobayashi-Maskawa parameters
for W+ and W- charged weak boson processes are:
d s b
u .975 .222 .00249 -0.00388i
c -0.222 -0.000161i .974 -0.0000365i .0423
t .00698 -0.00378i -0.0418 -0.00086i .999
The phase angle d13 is taken to be 1 radian.
As far as I know,
it is the only unified model that allows calculation of so many
parameters all in the same "ball-park" as observed values,
so, to me,
such results indicate that the fundamental structures of
my model are likely to be good representations of realistic physics.
It is my opinion that more accurate calculations than tree-level
would be nice and useful.
For instance, with respect to the color force strength,
Matthew Nobes goes on to ask:
>.. how, *exactly* do you propose to take nonperturbative
>QCD into account? ...
I do not know how to do exact nonperturbative calculations,
so it is fair for Matthew Nobes to regard my crude ideas as
to how my calculations might be affected by nonperturbative
phenomena as wishful speculation on my part.
One (perhaps dated) motivation for my crude idea/speculation
is the paper of Shifman at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9501222
in which Shifman said:
"... The value of \alpha_s (M_Z) emerging from the so called
global fits based mainly on the data at the Z peak (and assuming
the standard model) is three standard deviations higher
than the one stemming from the low-energy phenomenology. ...".
Patrascioiu and Seiler in http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9609292
said "... the running of \alpha_s predicted by perturbation (PT) theory
is not correctly describing the accelerator experiments at the highest
energies. A natural explanation is provided by the authors' 1992
proposal that in fact the true running predicted by the nonperturbatively
defined lattice QCD is different ...".
The Patrascioiu and Seiler paper indicates that my crude use
of simple perturbative QCD running is (as Matthew Nobes noted)
not correct. If you look at Figure 2 of their paper, you see
that their "possible modified running of \alpha_s" curve is
at 100 GeV close to the .12 range,
while their 2-loop PT curve is close to the .10 range of my
crude perturbative calculation.
That is why I think (speculate?) that nonperturbative effects
might bring calculations of my model closer to observations.
I should also note that I have some fear that it may be difficult
to do very accurate nonperturbative QCD calculations,
based in part on what Morozov and Niemi say in
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0304178
"... The field theoretical renormalization group equations
have many common features with the equations of dynamical systems.
.... we propose that besides isolated fixed points,
the couplings in a renormalizable field theory may also flow towards
more general, even fractal attractors.
This could lead to Big Mess scenarios ... ".
In conclusion,
I am not contending that my tree-level calculations are in
exact agreement with currently accepted observations.
I am contending that the overall approximate agreement of
my calculations with observations of many parameters
does indicate that the fundamental structure of my physics model
is sound.
Tony Smith
Matthew Nobes
Apr24-04, 05:26 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Tony Smith <smi123th@innerx.com> wrote in message news:<83571a1e.0404232025.5f9fd6b6-100000@posting.google.com>...\n\n> Matthew Nobes is correct that the tree-level calculations\n> in my paper do not all agree with currently accepted experimental\n> values within currently accepted error bars. [...]\n> The particle masses are: [...]\n> * Md = Mu = 312.8 MeV (constituent quark mass)\n\nJust to add more critical remarks I should ask you what exactly the\nrelationship between constituent quark mass and a more standard\nquark mass (say the MSbar mass). Constituent masses are typically\nmodel dependent, and could really be anything.\n\n> As far as I know,\n> it is the only unified model that allows calculation of so many\n> parameters all in the same "ball-park" as observed values,\n> so, to me,\n> such results indicate that the fundamental structures of\n> my model are likely to be good representations of realistic physics.\n\nExcept at least two of these quantities (quark masses and alpha_s)\nare nothing more than wishful thinking.\n\n> It is my opinion that more accurate calculations than tree-level\n> would be nice and useful.\n\nSure, have you done them? They cannot be that hard.\n\n> For instance, with respect to the color force strength,\n> Matthew Nobes goes on to ask:\n> >.. how, *exactly* do you propose to take nonperturbative\n> >QCD into account? ...\n>\n> I do not know how to do exact nonperturbative calculations,\n> so it is fair for Matthew Nobes to regard my crude ideas as\n> to how my calculations might be affected by nonperturbative\n> phenomena as wishful speculation on my part.\n> One (perhaps dated) motivation for my crude idea/speculation\n> is the paper of Shifman at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9501222\n> in which Shifman said:\n[snip]\n\nThe picture is much clearer now that LEP has run its course. The\nparticle data book (free to all online) has a nice summary of\nall the determinations of alpha_s.\n\n> I should also note that I have some fear that it may be difficult\n> to do very accurate nonperturbative QCD calculations,\n\nIt\'s very difficult, and *cannot* be done by hand. You need\nlattice QCD.\n\n> In conclusion,\n> I am not contending that my tree-level calculations are in\n> exact agreement with currently accepted observations.\n\nThe point is they\'re *way* off of some very very precisly measured\nresults.\n\n> I am contending that the overall approximate agreement of\n> my calculations with observations of many parameters\n> does indicate that the fundamental structure of my physics model\n> is sound.\n\nExcept when you come near QCD quantities it would appear.\nConstituent quark masses are meaningless, as is your determination\nof alpha_s, without some non-perturbative calculations.\n\nCan you compute the MSbar quark mass? Or the pole mass?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Tony Smith <smi123th@innerx.com> wrote in message news:<83571a1e.0404232025.5f9fd6b6-100000@posting.google.com>...
> Matthew Nobes is correct that the tree-level calculations
> in my paper do not all agree with currently accepted experimental
> values within currently accepted error bars. [...]
> The particle masses are: [...]
> * Md = \Mu = 312.8 MeV (constituent quark mass)
Just to add more critical remarks I should ask you what exactly the
relationship between constituent quark mass and a more standard
quark mass (say the MSbar mass). Constituent masses are typically
model dependent, and could really be anything.
> As far as I know,
> it is the only unified model that allows calculation of so many
> parameters all in the same "ball-park" as observed values,
> so, to me,
> such results indicate that the fundamental structures of
> my model are likely to be good representations of realistic physics.
Except at least two of these quantities (quark masses and \alpha_s)
are nothing more than wishful thinking.
> It is my opinion that more accurate calculations than tree-level
> would be nice and useful.
Sure, have you done them? They cannot be that hard.
> For instance, with respect to the color force strength,
> Matthew Nobes goes on to ask:
> >.. how, *exactly* do you propose to take nonperturbative
> >QCD into account? ...
>
> I do not know how to do exact nonperturbative calculations,
> so it is fair for Matthew Nobes to regard my crude ideas as
> to how my calculations might be affected by nonperturbative
> phenomena as wishful speculation on my part.
> One (perhaps dated) motivation for my crude idea/speculation
> is the paper of Shifman at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9501222
> in which Shifman said:
[snip]
The picture is much clearer now that LEP has run its course. The
particle data book (free to all online) has a nice summary of
all the determinations of \alpha_s.
> I should also note that I have some fear that it may be difficult
> to do very accurate nonperturbative QCD calculations,
It's very difficult, and *cannot* be done by hand. You need
lattice QCD.
> In conclusion,
> I am not contending that my tree-level calculations are in
> exact agreement with currently accepted observations.
The point is they're *way* off of some very very precisly measured
results.
> I am contending that the overall approximate agreement of
> my calculations with observations of many parameters
> does indicate that the fundamental structure of my physics model
> is sound.
Except when you come near QCD quantities it would appear.
Constituent quark masses are meaningless, as is your determination
of \alpha_s, without some non-perturbative calculations.
Can you compute the MSbar quark mass? Or the pole mass?
Tony Smith
Apr25-04, 07:57 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Matthew Nobes wrote\n\n> ... constituent quark ... masses are typically\n> model dependent, and could really be anything ...\n> Constituent quark masses are meaningless ...\n> without some non-perturbative calculations ...\n\nMy view of constituent quark masses is that they can be (and are in my\nmodel) meaningful, particularly in nonrelativistic quark models of\nlight-quark hadrons (for heavier quarks, the percentage difference between\ncurrent and constituent masses can be relatively small). For example,\nGuidry, in his book Gauge Field Theories, John Wiley (1991), says:\n\n"... the current masses of the quarks ... are considerably smaller than\nthe constituent masses for the lightest quarks Mu = 300 MeV Md = 300 MeV\n.... ... the masses of the constituent quarks presumably reflect a dressing\nby the confinement mechanism ... understanding of the relationship between\ncurrent masses and constituent masses awaits a first-principles solution\nof the QCD bound-state problem. ...\n\nNevertheless, nonrelativistic models of quark structure for hadrons habve\nbeen found to work surprisingly well, even for light hadrons. ..."\nFurther, Georgi, in his book Weak Interactions and Modern Particle Theory,\nBenjamin-Cummings (1984), says:\n\n"... Successes of the Nonrelativistic Quark Model ... ... The first\nstriking success is that the baryon masses are given correctly by this\npicture ... The leading contribution to the baryon mass in the\nnonrelativistic limit is just the sum of the constituent quark masses. ...\nA good picture of the baryon masses is obtained if we take ... mu = md\n=...= 360 MeV ... With these masses, the octet baryon magnetic moments are\n....[in]... excellent ... agreement ... with the data ... The success ...\nin giving not only the ratios of the baryon magnetic moments, but even\ntheir overall scale, seems to me to be very significant. ... The mystery\nof the connection between QCD and the quark model remains ...".\n\nMy view is that the structure of my model, in which constituent quark\nmasses are calculated from volumes of bounded complex domains and their\nShilov boundaries, may shed some light on the connection between QCD\ncurrent masses and constituent masses. In particular, those geometric\nvolumes may be related to effective summation over a lot of QCD states to\nproduce a bound-state constituent result.\n\nMatthew Nobes also asks whether I have done calculations beyond tree-level\nfor my results.\n\nI have not, but I have played with them a bit. For example:\n\n1 - For the muon, my tree-level calculation is 104.8 MeV and the accepted\nobservational value is about 105.6 MeV. All I have done is to note that\nthe difference seems to me to be well within the range of radiative\ncorrections. For example, Bailin and Love, in their book Introduction to\nGauge Field Theory, IOP (rev ed 1993), say:\n\n"... considering the order alpha radiative corrections to muon decay ...\nNumerical details are contained in Sirlin ... 1980 Phys. Rev. D 22 971\n.... who concludes that the order alpha corrections have the effect of\nincreasing the decay rate about 7% compared with the tree graph prediction\n....". The corresponding effective increase in muon mass would be about\n1.36%, which would bring 104.8 MeV up to about 106.2 MeV, which makes me\nfeel that my tree-level calculation is reasonably close to experimental\nobservations.\n\n2 - For the proton-neutron mass difference (which is zero in\nmy model at tree level) further calculation on pages 51-55 of\nhttp://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0207095\ngives a value of 1.1 MeV for the neutron mass excess over the\nproton mass, which is from my view pretty close to the\naccepted value of about 1.3 MeV.\n\n3 - For the UCC - DCC mass difference (which is zero in\nmy model at tree level) further calculation on pages 55-57 of\nhttp://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0207095\ngives a value of 81.53 MeV for the UCC -DCC mass difference,\nwhich is about 62.7 times the experimental value of the\nneutron-proton mass difference. As Kurt Riesselmann said\nin a 14 June 2002 article in Fermi News at\nhttp://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/ferminews02-06-14/selex.html\n"... Physicists expect the mass difference\nbetween u-c-c and d-c-c baryons to be comparable to\nthe difference in proton (u-u-d) and neutron (u-d-d) mass,\nsince this particle pair is also related by the replacement\nof an up by a down quark. The proton-neutron mass splitting,\nhowever, is sixty times smaller than the mass difference\n.... observed by the SELEX collaboration. ...".\nIn my view, this is a clear indication that my model has\nfundamental structure that can shed light on some aspects\nof particle physics that conventional models have difficulty\nexplaining.\n\nIt is true that I have not done a lot of calculations at\nhigher-than-tree-level and that I have not done a set of\nconversions between constituent masses, current masses, etc.\nI do not claim that my work is completely complete and perfect\nand the end of physics. However, I do claim that my model is\ninterestingly close to experimental results and that the\nmathematical structures in my model might well shed a lot\nof light on some of the issues raised by Matthew Nobes,\nsuch as connections between constituent and current quark masses.\n\nIn my view, I disagree with Matthew Nobes when he says that\nmy tree-level calculations are "... *way* off of some very\nvery precisly measured results. ...". In my opinion,\nhow far "off" my tree-level calculations are from experimental\nresults should not be determined by experimental precision,\nbut by the expected magnitude of higher-level corrections.\n\nFurther, it seems to me that to declare my work "bunk" and "wrong"\nbecause I have not done all conceivably useful further calculations,\nsuch as a complete set of radiative corrections, would be analagous\nto declaring Dirac\'s early work on the Dirac equation to be "bunk"\nand "wrong" because he had not done QED.\n\nTony Smith\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Matthew Nobes wrote
> ... constituent quark ... masses are typically
> model dependent, and could really be anything ...
> Constituent quark masses are meaningless ...
> without some non-perturbative calculations ...
My view of constituent quark masses is that they can be (and are in my
model) meaningful, particularly in nonrelativistic quark models of
light-quark hadrons (for heavier quarks, the percentage difference between
current and constituent masses can be relatively small). For example,
Guidry, in his book Gauge Field Theories, John Wiley (1991), says:
"... the current masses of the quarks ... are considerably smaller than
the constituent masses for the lightest quarks \Mu = 300 MeV Md = 300 MeV
.... ... the masses of the constituent quarks presumably reflect a dressing
by the confinement mechanism ... understanding of the relationship between
current masses and constituent masses awaits a first-principles solution
of the QCD bound-state problem. ...
Nevertheless, nonrelativistic models of quark structure for hadrons habve
been found to work surprisingly well, even for light hadrons. ..."
Further, Georgi, in his book Weak Interactions and Modern Particle Theory,
Benjamin-Cummings (1984), says:
"... Successes of the Nonrelativistic Quark Model ... ... The first
striking success is that the baryon masses are given correctly by this
picture ... The leading contribution to the baryon mass in the
nonrelativistic limit is just the sum of the constituent quark masses. ...
A good picture of the baryon masses is obtained if we take ... \mu = md=...= 360 MeV ... With these masses, the octet baryon magnetic moments are
....[in]... excellent ... agreement ... with the data ... The success ...
in giving not only the ratios of the baryon magnetic moments, but even
their overall scale, seems to me to be very significant. ... The mystery
of the connection between QCD and the quark model remains ...".
My view is that the structure of my model, in which constituent quark
masses are calculated from volumes of bounded complex domains and their
Shilov boundaries, may shed some light on the connection between QCD
current masses and constituent masses. In particular, those geometric
volumes may be related to effective summation over a lot of QCD states to
produce a bound-state constituent result.
Matthew Nobes also asks whether I have done calculations beyond tree-level
for my results.
I have not, but I have played with them a bit. For example:
1 - For the muon, my tree-level calculation is 104.8 MeV and the accepted
observational value is about 105.6 MeV. All I have done is to note that
the difference seems to me to be well within the range of radiative
corrections. For example, Bailin and Love, in their book Introduction to
Gauge Field Theory, IOP (rev ed 1993), say:
"... considering the order \alpha radiative corrections to muon decay ...
Numerical details are contained in Sirlin ... 1980 Phys. Rev. D 22 971
.... who concludes that the order \alpha corrections have the effect of
increasing the decay rate about 7% compared with the tree graph prediction
....". The corresponding effective increase in muon mass would be about
1.36%, which would bring 104.8 MeV up to about 106.2 MeV, which makes me
feel that my tree-level calculation is reasonably close to experimental
observations.
2 - For the proton-neutron mass difference (which is zero in
my model at tree level) further calculation on pages 51-55 of
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0207095
gives a value of 1.1 MeV for the neutron mass excess over the
proton mass, which is from my view pretty close to the
accepted value of about 1.3 MeV.
3 - For the UCC - DCC mass difference (which is zero in
my model at tree level) further calculation on pages 55-57 of
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0207095
gives a value of 81.53 MeV for the UCC -DCC mass difference,
which is about 62.7 times the experimental value of the
neutron-proton mass difference. As Kurt Riesselmann said
in a 14 June 2002 article in Fermi News at
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/ferminews02-06-14/selex.html
"... Physicists expect the mass difference
between u-c-c and d-c-c baryons to be comparable to
the difference in proton (u-u-d) and neutron (u-d-d) mass,
since this particle pair is also related by the replacement
of an up by a down quark. The proton-neutron mass splitting,
however, is sixty times smaller than the mass difference
.... observed by the SELEX collaboration. ...".
In my view, this is a clear indication that my model has
fundamental structure that can shed light on some aspects
of particle physics that conventional models have difficulty
explaining.
It is true that I have not done a lot of calculations at
higher-than-tree-level and that I have not done a set of
conversions between constituent masses, current masses, etc.
I do not claim that my work is completely complete and perfect
and the end of physics. However, I do claim that my model is
interestingly close to experimental results and that the
mathematical structures in my model might well shed a lot
of light on some of the issues raised by Matthew Nobes,
such as connections between constituent and current quark masses.
In my view, I disagree with Matthew Nobes when he says that
my tree-level calculations are "... *way* off of some very
very precisly measured results. ...". In my opinion,
how far "off" my tree-level calculations are from experimental
results should not be determined by experimental precision,
but by the expected magnitude of higher-level corrections.
Further, it seems to me that to declare my work "bunk" and "wrong"
because I have not done all conceivably useful further calculations,
such as a complete set of radiative corrections, would be analagous
to declaring Dirac's early work on the Dirac equation to be "bunk"
and "wrong" because he had not done QED.
Tony Smith
Matthew Nobes
Apr25-04, 06:59 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Tony Smith <smi123th@innerx.com> wrote in message news:<83571a1e.0404242223.3531534b-100000@posting.google.com>...\n\n> Further, it seems to me that to declare my work "bunk" and "wrong"\n> because I have not done all conceivably useful further calculations,\n> such as a complete set of radiative corrections, would be analagous\n> to declaring Dirac\'s early work on the Dirac equation to be "bunk"\n> and "wrong" because he had not done QED.\n\nWe\'ve both said our peice, so I\'ll drop this at this point (we\'re\nway afield of string theory in any case).\n\n[Moderator\'s note: that\'s right! LM]\n\nJust one correction: I didn\'t call your model bunk, I called your\ncalculation of alpha_s bunk, which it is. You ran alpha up using a\nperturbative formula which does not apply at your starting point. At 245\nMeV alpha_s > 1, you cannot use the perturbative running at all.\n*Everything past that is bunk, since you did something which is totally\ninvalid.\n\nThe same applies to your quark masses. The relationship between\nconstituent quark masses and the actual QCD masses is not\nknown, and probably model dependent. To claim agreement with\nthe standard model seems a bit premature.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Tony Smith <smi123th@innerx.com> wrote in message news:<83571a1e.0404242223.3531534b-100000@posting.google.com>...
> Further, it seems to me that to declare my work "bunk" and "wrong"
> because I have not done all conceivably useful further calculations,
> such as a complete set of radiative corrections, would be analagous
> to declaring Dirac's early work on the Dirac equation to be "bunk"
> and "wrong" because he had not done QED.
We've both said our peice, so I'll drop this at this point (we're
way afield of string theory in any case).
[Moderator's note: that's right! LM]
Just one correction: I didn't call your model bunk, I called your
calculation of \alpha_s bunk, which it is. You ran \alpha up using a
perturbative formula which does not apply at your starting point. At 245
MeV \alpha_s > 1, you cannot use the perturbative running at all.
*Everything past that is bunk, since you did something which is totally
invalid.
The same applies to your quark masses. The relationship between
constituent quark masses and the actual QCD masses is not
known, and probably model dependent. To claim agreement with
the standard model seems a bit premature.
Tony Smith
Apr26-04, 05:03 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Matthew Nobes wrote\n> We\'ve both said our peice, so I\'ll drop this at this point (we\'re\n> way afield of string theory in any case).\n> [Moderator\'s note: that\'s right! LM]\n\nI would agree, except that Matthew Nobes did not\nin fact drop at that point, but went on to say:\n"... Just one correction: I didn\'t call your model bunk,\nI called your calculation of alpha_s bunk, which it is.\nYou ran alpha up using a perturbative formula which does\nnot apply at your starting point.\nAt 245 MeV alpha_s > 1 ...".\n\nThat "correction" is a misstatement of fact:\nIn my model at 245 MeV alpha_s = 0.6286 which is < 1.\nSee page 27 of\nhttp://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0207095\nPerhaps my model value of 0.6286 at 245 MeV may be inconsistent\nwith Matthew Nobes\'s understanding of experimental data,\nbut it is the value used in my model.\n\nI would be happy to see some discussion about string theory,\nespecially about the graded structure of the exceptional Lie\nalgebra E6 as it might be related to my (admittedly unconventional)\nphysical interpretation of the 26 dimensions of string theory,\nwhich is a major theme of my CERN CDS preprint EXT-2004-031 at\nhttp://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=730325&ln=en\nThe main reason I posted to sps in the first place\nwas hoping to get some opinions about that.\n\nTony Smith\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Matthew Nobes wrote
> We've both said our peice, so I'll drop this at this point (we're
> way afield of string theory in any case).
> [Moderator's note: that's right! LM]
I would agree, except that Matthew Nobes did not
in fact drop at that point, but went on to say:
"... Just one correction: I didn't call your model bunk,
I called your calculation of \alpha_s bunk, which it is.
You ran \alpha up using a perturbative formula which does
not apply at your starting point.
At 245 MeV \alpha_s > 1 ...".
That "correction" is a misstatement of fact:
In my model at 245 MeV \alpha_s = .6286 which is < 1.
See page 27 of
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0207095
Perhaps my model value of .6286 at 245 MeV may be inconsistent
with Matthew Nobes's understanding of experimental data,
but it is the value used in my model.
I would be happy to see some discussion about string theory,
especially about the graded structure of the exceptional Lie
algebra E6 as it might be related to my (admittedly unconventional)
physical interpretation of the 26 dimensions of string theory,
which is a major theme of my CERN CDS preprint EXT-2004-031 at
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=730325&ln=en
The main reason I posted to sps in the first place
was hoping to get some opinions about that.
Tony Smith
Matthew Nobes
Apr27-04, 04:49 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Tony Smith <smi123th@innerx.com> wrote in message news:<83571a1e.0404252026.38c1c1aa-100000@posting.google.com>...\n[snip]\n> I would agree, except that Matthew Nobes did not\n> in fact drop at that point, but went on to say:\n> "... Just one correction: I didn\'t call your model bunk,\n> I called your calculation of alpha_s bunk, which it is.\n> You ran alpha up using a perturbative formula which does\n> not apply at your starting point.\n> At 245 MeV alpha_s > 1 ...".\n>\n> That "correction" is a misstatement of fact:\n> In my model at 245 MeV alpha_s = 0.6286 which is < 1.\n> See page 27 of\n> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0207095\n> Perhaps my model value of 0.6286 at 245 MeV may be inconsistent\n> with Matthew Nobes\'s understanding of experimental data,\n> but it is the value used in my model.\n\nThe problem is that you are using perturbative QCD running\n*starting* at 245 MeV. That\'s wrong, period. 245 MeV < Lambda QCD\nso you\'re going to run through a point where alpha_s blows up. So\nyou are using the perturbative formula where it doesn\'t apply, then\nrunning up to 91 GeV. *Then* you want to blame non-perturbative\neffects for the mismatch between your model and experiment. But\nat 91 GeV non-perturbative effects will be lower than at 245 MeV.\n\nThe value you compute at 245 MeV is not what I care about, it\'s how you use\nit. To claim agreement with the SM is rather premature.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Tony Smith <smi123th@innerx.com> wrote in message news:<83571a1e.0404252026.38c1c1aa-100000@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> I would agree, except that Matthew Nobes did not
> in fact drop at that point, but went on to say:
> "... Just one correction: I didn't call your model bunk,
> I called your calculation of \alpha_s bunk, which it is.
> You ran \alpha up using a perturbative formula which does
> not apply at your starting point.
> At 245 MeV \alpha_s > 1 ...".
>
> That "correction" is a misstatement of fact:
> In my model at 245 MeV \alpha_s = .6286 which is < 1.
> See page 27 of
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0207095
> Perhaps my model value of .6286 at 245 MeV may be inconsistent
> with Matthew Nobes's understanding of experimental data,
> but it is the value used in my model.
The problem is that you are using perturbative QCD running
*starting* at 245 MeV. That's wrong, period. 245 MeV < \Lambda QCD
so you're going to run through a point where \alpha_s blows up. So
you are using the perturbative formula where it doesn't apply, then
running up to 91 GeV. *Then* you want to blame non-perturbative
effects for the mismatch between your model and experiment. But
at 91 GeV non-perturbative effects will be lower than at 245 MeV.
The value you compute at 245 MeV is not what I care about, it's how you use
it. To claim agreement with the SM is rather premature.
Alejandro
Apr27-04, 11:28 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Tony Smith <smi123th@innerx.com> wrote in message news:<83571a1e.0404221111.73743116-100000@posting.google.com>...\n\n> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0207095\n>\n> Therefore, since 2004 precedes 2030, the probability for a\n> string theoretical calculation of Standard Model parameters\n> by 2030 is 1.\n\nTony, the paper seems to me group-theoretical, no string-theoretical (and\nalso the CERN archived one)\n\nNow, I think that you should add to them a GIGO analysis, ie how much\n[ga****e] do you put in, to get the standard model parameters out.\n\nI mean, how many dimensional scales do you need to put by hand and\nhow many numerical/numerological arbitrary choosings do you need\nwhen choosing symmetry group and calculation procedure.\n\nAlejandro\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Tony Smith <smi123th@innerx.com> wrote in message news:<83571a1e.0404221111.73743116-100000@posting.google.com>...
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0207095
>
> Therefore, since 2004 precedes 2030, the probability for a
> string theoretical calculation of Standard Model parameters
> by 2030 is 1.
Tony, the paper seems to me group-theoretical, no string-theoretical (and
also the CERN archived one)
Now, I think that you should add to them a GIGO analysis, ie how much
[ga****e] do you put in, to get the standard model parameters out.
I mean, how many dimensional scales do you need to put by hand and
how many numerical/numerological arbitrary choosings do you need
when choosing symmetry group and calculation procedure.
Alejandro
Tony Smith
Apr27-04, 02:23 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Matthew Nobes wrote\n\n> The problem is that you are using perturbative QCD running\n> *starting* at 245 MeV. That\'s wrong, period. 245 MeV < Lambda QCD\n\nIn fact there is some support for the possibility that\nLambda QCD might be less than 245 MeV or so. In\n\nhttp://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9501222\n\n[Moderator\'s note: I encourage the participants to terminate the\ndiscussions unrelated to string theory. It seems to me that the\nspeculative character of Tony\'s sentence above ("there is some support ...\nless than 245 MeV") seems to confirm Matthew\'s comments that the\nconstituent quark masses are model-dependent, and their precise values\nshould not be so easily extractable. Matthew, please don\'t repeat this\npoint. LM]\n\nShifman says\n"... a set of data ("high-energy data") yield values of alpha_s(MZ)\nin the MSbar scheme which cluster around 0.125 ...\nwith the error bars 0.005 ...\nThe corresponding value of LambdaQCD is about 500 MeV ...\nThese numbers, accepted as the most exact results for the strong\ncoupling constant existing at present, propagate further into a\nstream of papers ... devoted to various aspects of QCD.\nThe question arises whether Quantum Chromodynamics can\ntolerate these numbers. I will argue below that the answer is negative.\n.... I believe that alpha_s(MZ) must be close to 0.11 and\nthe corresponding value of LambdaQCD close to 200 MeV\n(or even smaller). ...".\n\nFor all I know, the value LambdaQCD = 500 MeV or so may be\nthe majority view among physicists, but I am pointing out\nthat there may be a minority view that might be consistent with\nmy model, and that my model has some success in calculations\nof such things as the UCC-DCC mass difference.\n\nTony Smith\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Matthew Nobes wrote
> The problem is that you are using perturbative QCD running
> *starting* at 245 MeV. That's wrong, period. 245 MeV < \Lambda QCD
In fact there is some support for the possibility that
\Lambda QCD might be less than 245 MeV or so. In
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9501222
[Moderator's note: I encourage the participants to terminate the
discussions unrelated to string theory. It seems to me that the
speculative character of Tony's sentence above ("there is some support ...
less than 245 MeV") seems to confirm Matthew's comments that the
constituent quark masses are model-dependent, and their precise values
should not be so easily extractable. Matthew, please don't repeat this
point. LM]
Shifman says
"... a set of data ("high-energy data") yield values of \alpha_s(MZ)
in the MSbar scheme which cluster around .125 ...
with the error bars .005 ...
The corresponding value of LambdaQCD is about 500 MeV ...
These numbers, accepted as the most exact results for the strong
coupling constant existing at present, propagate further into a
stream of papers ... devoted to various aspects of QCD.
The question arises whether Quantum Chromodynamics can
tolerate these numbers. I will argue below that the answer is negative.
.... I believe that \alpha_s(MZ) must be close to .11 and
the corresponding value of LambdaQCD close to 200 MeV
(or even smaller). ...".
For all I know, the value LambdaQCD = 500 MeV or so may be
the majority view among physicists, but I am pointing out
that there may be a minority view that might be consistent with
my model, and that my model has some success in calculations
of such things as the UCC-DCC mass difference.
Tony Smith
Tony Smith
Apr27-04, 09:59 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Alejandro Rivero wrote:\n\n> Tony, the paper seems to me group-theoretical, no string-theoretical\n> (and also the CERN archived one)\n> ... how many dimensional scales do you need to put by hand and\n> how many numerical/numerological arbitrary choosings do you need\n> when choosing symmetry group and calculation procedure.\n\nI had hoped that the CERN CDS preprint EXT-2004-031 would\nbe understood as primarily a string theory paper,\nalthough it is not a superstring theory paper,\nand that there might be some comment on the possibility of\nusing the graded structure of E6 to give physical interpretation\nto the 26 dimensions of string theory.\nHowever, if that is not of interest to sps readers, then so be it,\nand I will quote Gilda Radner and say "Nevermind" to sps readers.\n\nAs to comparing choosings vs. calculational results,\nthere are a lot of calculational results, and I will try to give a\nrough outline of my view of such a comparison for some:\n\nIf the weak force VEV is fixed, the calculations give masses\nfor the Higgs scalar and the W and Z bosons,\nand geometric structure with electron mass normalized\ngives tree-level constituent masses for the up and down quarks.\n\nSo far, that is (in my view), given the structure of my model,\n2 inputs give you 5 additional mass values\n\nAs to force strengths, the group structure and related volumes\ngive a geometric strength factor to each of the 4 forces.\nIf one geometric force strength (say, gravity) is fixed by\nnormalization,\nthen the other 3 geometric force strengths follow, giving\n\nthe EM fine structure strength (at low energies - its running is\nnot covered by the tree level calculation);\n\nthe weak geometric strength, which with the weak force masses\n(already calculated above) give the Fermi Gf; and\n\nthe color force strength, however, due to rapid running,\nneeds to have an energy level chosen from which it is to run.\n(Since my choice of energy level has been the subject of some\nearlier discussion in this thread, I will not repeat it here, but I\nwill note that if my choice were not considered to be natural, then my\ncolor force strength calculation would not be a fully calculated\nparameter, so to be conservative I will not so count it here.)\n\nIn short, the forces (ignoring the color force to be conservative)\nrequire 1 more input but give 2 more outputs, so that my total\ncount for force strengths and first generation fermions is:\n\n3 inputs giving 7 outputs, for a total of 10 parameter values.\n\nConservatively, I have not counted either color force strength\nor a zero neutrino tree-level mass as calculated outputs,\nthus subordinating my personal views to try to reduce controversy.\n\nTony Smith\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Alejandro Rivero wrote:
> Tony, the paper seems to me group-theoretical, no string-theoretical
> (and also the CERN archived one)
> ... how many dimensional scales do you need to put by hand and
> how many numerical/numerological arbitrary choosings do you need
> when choosing symmetry group and calculation procedure.
I had hoped that the CERN CDS preprint EXT-2004-031 would
be understood as primarily a string theory paper,
although it is not a superstring theory paper,
and that there might be some comment on the possibility of
using the graded structure of E6 to give physical interpretation
to the 26 dimensions of string theory.
However, if that is not of interest to sps readers, then so be it,
and I will quote Gilda Radner and say "Nevermind" to sps readers.
As to comparing choosings vs. calculational results,
there are a lot of calculational results, and I will try to give a
rough outline of my view of such a comparison for some:
If the weak force VEV is fixed, the calculations give masses
for the Higgs scalar and the W and Z bosons,
and geometric structure with electron mass normalized
gives tree-level constituent masses for the up and down quarks.
So far, that is (in my view), given the structure of my model,
2 inputs give you 5 additional mass values
As to force strengths, the group structure and related volumes
give a geometric strength factor to each of the 4 forces.
If one geometric force strength (say, gravity) is fixed by
normalization,
then the other 3 geometric force strengths follow, giving
the EM fine structure strength (at low energies - its running is
not covered by the tree level calculation);
the weak geometric strength, which with the weak force masses
(already calculated above) give the Fermi Gf; and
the color force strength, however, due to rapid running,
needs to have an energy level chosen from which it is to run.
(Since my choice of energy level has been the subject of some
earlier discussion in this thread, I will not repeat it here, but I
will note that if my choice were not considered to be natural, then my
color force strength calculation would not be a fully calculated
parameter, so to be conservative I will not so count it here.)
In short, the forces (ignoring the color force to be conservative)
require 1 more input but give 2 more outputs, so that my total
count for force strengths and first generation fermions is:
3 inputs giving 7 outputs, for a total of 10 parameter values.
Conservatively, I have not counted either color force strength
or a zero neutrino tree-level mass as calculated outputs,
thus subordinating my personal views to try to reduce controversy.
Tony Smith
3 scale inputs plus the symmetry group, giving seven inputs. It is typical of group-based GUT theories. Surely you can even predict the disintegration rate of proton (no joking, they do).
Perhaps your question in this forum could be, if string theory has something to say about the group. As far as I understand, the answer is negative because moduli spaces let you to choose between a lot of different groups.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.