Anomaly-driven Decay of Massive Vector Bosons

  • Thread starter marcus
  • Start date

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783

arivero

Gold Member
3,280
49
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According my documentation, which could be ten years outdated in this topic, the decay of charmonium, when calculated via three virtual gluons, does not approach very well the experimental results.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.
 

arivero

Gold Member
3,280
49
By the way, the review of Z0 decay has some nice implications, I am sketching a brief note about it.
 

arivero

Gold Member
3,280
49
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:

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
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 dont 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:

arivero

Gold Member
3,280
49
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:

Hans de Vries

Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,062
12
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.
 

arivero

Gold Member
3,280
49
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:
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top