QCD Particles: Johan Hanssen's Argument

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter selfAdjoint
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particles Qcd
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Johan Hanssen's argument regarding Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) and the implications of its nonlinear Lagrangian on the existence of particles, particularly quarks. Participants explore the theoretical foundations, implications for particle definitions, and the relationship between QCD and experimental observations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • CarlB highlights Hanssen's assertion that the nonlinearity of the QCD Lagrangian prevents the definition of particles, suggesting that quarks cannot exist in isolation due to their nature as interacting fields.
  • Some participants argue that Hanssen's argument is not a proof but rather a long-standing contention in QCD discussions.
  • There is a question raised about the validity of using creation/deletion operators in QCD, given the potential issues with Fourier transforms and the curvature of the SU(3) group manifold.
  • Another participant references Hanssen's work on the "proton spin crisis," suggesting that the measurement of proton spin may not be consistent across different experimental setups.
  • One viewpoint suggests that introducing an infrared cut-off could allow for Fourier decompositions, arguing that approximations are acceptable in perturbation theory.
  • Another participant contends that while QCD makes accurate predictions, the use of the term "particle" may be too restrictive and dependent on specific definitions.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of approximations in QCD, with comparisons made to QED and the implications of theoretical limitations like the Landau pole.
  • Some participants argue that both QED and QCD should be viewed as part of a larger theoretical framework, suggesting that their limitations do not undermine their applicability.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of Hanssen's argument and the implications for particle definitions in QCD. There is no consensus on whether the issues raised invalidate the concept of particles in QCD or if they can be reconciled with existing theoretical frameworks.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves complex theoretical considerations, including the definitions of particles, the nature of interactions in QCD, and the implications of experimental observations. The conversation reflects ongoing debates in the field without resolving the underlying uncertainties.

selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
6,843
Reaction score
11
CarlB called attention to this paper by Johan Hanssen: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0011060, on the BTSM forum. Hanssen asserts that because the Lagrangian of QCD is nonlinear, since the structure constants for su(3) do not vanish, therefore you can't do Fourier transforms on the fields, and hence can't define the ladder or number operators, so no particles, only interacting fields. He uses this to show why quarks cannot exist in isoloation (the supposed quark in the source of a color field, which, by nonlinearity is also itself the source of a color field, ... Thus the quark is always a nexus of intracting fields and cannot be isolated.

What does anybody here think of this line of argument?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The problem is that it is an argument, not a proof. But of course this kind of argumentation, "no particles", has been around QCD since its origins.
 
arivero said:
The problem is that it is an argument, not a proof. But of course this kind of argumentation, "no particles", has been around QCD since its origins.

Well, then, what is the state of play? Do people actually use the creation/deletion operators in spite of the Fourier transform being undefined due to the curvature of the SU(3) group manifold? Or is the allegation that it is undefined a false one? Is this a pertubative issue? What do the phenomenologists, who cling to their observational partons in spite of all the Nobels for QCD, think about it?
 
Another paper by the same author gives another facet to the argument:

The "proton spin crisis" - a quantum query
Yohan Hansson, (2003)
The "proton spin crisis" was introduced in the late 1980s, when the EMC-experiment revealed that little or nothing of a proton's spin seemed to be carried by its quarks. The main objective of this paper is to point out that it is wrong to assume that the proton spin, measured by completely different experimental setups, should be the same in all circumstances.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0304225

This reminds me of something I read in Landau and Lif$hitz (probably QM or just maybe RQM) some time ago, to the effect that the usual rules for adding angular momentum only work in a weak interaction regime. I'd never read anything like that before and it stood out to me. It was only a footnote and they didn't explain more.

Carl
 
Last edited:
I don't think this is a valid criticism of QCD. It is true that one normally applies the boundary condition of vanishing fields at infinity, but I can't see any reason why one couldn't put in an infrared cut-off and still make Fourier decompositions. Of course, then your theory becomes an approximation, but in perturbation theory we are making approximations anyway, and at high energies where we have asymptotic freedom it will be a very good approximation. After all, the factorization of different energy scales is well know.

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. QCD makes predictions, and these predictions are well verified by experiment.

One can of course object to the use of the word particle, but I would contend that you are using a rather specific definition of the word. After all, no system is ever truly asymptotically free.
 
Severian said:
But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. QCD makes predictions, and these predictions are well verified by experiment.

That's no excuse for doing things you know to be wrong. The predictions of QED are even more accurate, and many think that QED "doesn't even exist" as a well-defined theory (Landau pole, e.g.).

A map representing a limited area on Earth as flat is pretty accurate too, but doesn't justify saying the world is flat.
 
Sure it does. No-one thinks QED or QCD exist in a vacuum (no pun intended). They are part of a grander theory, so the QED Landau pole problem is not really a problem (since other physics will be applicable at that scale) and similarly the QCD asymptotic states problem is not a problem either.

The final theory of everything had better be well definied, since it has no new physics to fall back on, but that is another issue.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
10K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
11K
Replies
7
Views
10K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K