Anomaly-driven Decay of Massive Vector Bosons

In summary, the conversation is about a recently posted article on Arxiv that discusses the decay of charmonium and the use of virtual photons to calculate it. The article also mentions a review of Z0 decay and its implications. The conversation then shifts to a different article that was removed from Arxiv and the confusion surrounding its acceptance and rejection. The participants also briefly discuss a paper and its use of a 5x5 matrix related to the SU(5) grand unified theory. It is clarified that the matrix is actually T3, the third component of isospin.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Yep, it is partly another derivative of the numeric thread, and partly of the recent article of MacGregor.

According my documentation, which could be ten years outdated in this topic, the decay of charmonium, when calculated via three virtual gluons, does not approach very well the experimental results. The article proposes to see it via two virtual photons via the anomaly.
 
  • #3
By the way, the review of Z0 decay has some nice implications, I am sketching a brief note about it.
 
  • #4
arivero said:
By the way, the review of Z0 decay has some nice implications, I am sketching a brief note about it.

OK it is http://dftuz.unizar.es/~rivero/research/0507169.pdf [Broken] from ArXiV. It could be that the stated result, that for any charge content of the theory Z0 decay is minimum when Weinberg angle equal to the GUT angle, were already known, but I am unaware of it.

I have shown the comment to some more knowledge sources, and it seems that it does not appear in the literature, albeit surely "is just a curiousity, but it is sort of amusing".

On other hand, it is true that my writting style was very imprecise, so perhaps it has contributed to raise the rejection flag at ArXiV.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
arivero said:
OK it is ...http://dftuz.unizar.es/~rivero/research/0507169.pdf [Broken]... Going back to business as usual, it has been http://dftuz.unizar.es/~rivero/research/0507169.arxiv.txt [Broken] ... removed from ArXiV. It could be that the stated result, that for any charge content of the theory Z0 decay is minimum when Weinberg angle equal to the GUT angle, were already known, but I am unaware of it.

It is beyond my ken what is going on. I don't understand the business of arxiv accepting and posting something and then removing it. Technically I also don't understand the issues, I just flagged the previous paper (...144) because i saw that it was by you and other people here might like to know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
No, no, the new paper, "Ah, that 3/8", has been retired, ie it was accepted by the robot, rejected in pre-posting revision by some human. The one you flagged, Marcus, is still there. The funny thing is that I expected the contrary result.

I have edited the previous comment to avoid this misunderstanding. BTW, the ArXiV management has been able to answer fast this time, and they have got the right nail: "This repository is only for self-contained research results. Your attempted submission does not appear to be a substantive research document. " It is true, I am always too lazy to write self-contained documents.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
arivero said:
I am always too lazy to write self-contained documents.

For instance the "T" in your paper. Is it a 5x5 matrix related to the generators
of the SU(5) grand unified theory of Georgi and Glashow? Which combines both
the 3x3 Gell-Mann and the 2x2 Pauli Matrices. (I only have Zee, ref 2)

It's not "directly evident" from the text. :smile:


Regards, Hans.
 
  • #8
Hans de Vries said:
For instance the "T" in your paper. Is it a 5x5 matrix related to the generators
of the SU(5) grand unified theory of Georgi and Glashow?
Blame part on me, part on Zee's book... actually it is T3, the third component of isospin. It is 0 for the Right fermions, +1/2 for u,\nu and -1/2 for d, e. Or so :uhh:
 

1. What is the "Anomaly-driven Decay of Massive Vector Bosons" theory?

The "Anomaly-driven Decay of Massive Vector Bosons" theory is a theoretical framework proposed to explain the decay of massive vector bosons, such as the W and Z bosons, in high energy collisions. It suggests that the decay is due to quantum anomalies, which are deviations from classical physical laws at the quantum level.

2. How does this theory differ from other explanations for the decay of massive vector bosons?

This theory differs from other explanations in that it is based on the concept of quantum anomalies, which have been observed in other areas of physics but have not yet been directly observed in the decay of vector bosons. It also proposes a new mechanism for the decay, rather than relying on the traditional understanding of particle interactions.

3. What evidence supports the "Anomaly-driven Decay of Massive Vector Bosons" theory?

There is currently no direct evidence to support this theory, as it is still a theoretical framework and has not been tested experimentally. However, it is a promising concept that has gained attention in the scientific community and is being further explored through theoretical calculations and simulations.

4. How could this theory impact our understanding of particle physics?

If this theory is proven to be true, it could have a significant impact on our understanding of particle physics and the fundamental forces of nature. It would also provide a new framework for studying the behavior of massive vector bosons and could lead to new discoveries and advancements in the field.

5. What are the potential applications of the "Anomaly-driven Decay of Massive Vector Bosons" theory?

The potential applications of this theory are still being explored, but it could have implications for future particle accelerators and high energy experiments. It could also lead to a better understanding of the behavior of other particles and potentially open up new avenues for research in quantum anomalies and their role in particle interactions.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top