
jcYoon's Physics Newsgroup and Email Discussion

View previous topic :: View next topic 
Author 
Message 
jcyoon
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 Posts: 213

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:53 pm Post subject: Parity Violation at E158 


lance@slac.stanford.edu
Fri 20041001 8:51 AM
Dear Professor Dixon,
Recently, I have noticed that you have cited E158 paper “Observation of Parity Nonconservation in Moller Scattering” in your preprint.
However, there is one thing I could not figure out in E158 paper. As long as I know, the helicity of a massive particle is not definite, since we can always find a boosted frame of reference in which the helicity is the opposite. Therefore, E158 measurment of helicity of electron or muons is only that of laboratory frame and it implies Lorentz violation.
I would like to appreciate if you can explain this issue.
I sincerely apologize for your time and effort if you find it unworthy of your attention.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Thanks,
J.C. Yoon 

Back to top 


Lance Dixon
Joined: 28 Sep 2006 Posts: 4

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:55 pm Post subject: Re: Parity Violation at E158 


Sun 20041003 12:30 AM
Dear Dr. Yoon,
[quote="J.C. Yoon"] However, there is one thing I could not figure out in E158 paper. As long as
I know, the helicity of a massive particle is not definite, since we can
always find a boosted frame of reference in which the helicity is the
opposite. Therefore, E158 measurment of helicity of electron or muons is
only that of laboratory frame and it implies Lorentz violation.[/quote]
It is true that for a massive particle, it is possible to boost
to a frame where the motion of the particle is in the opposite
direction from the unboosted frame. In the new frame, the spin angular
momentum can point in the opposite direction from the direction of motion,
whereas previously it pointed in the same direction.
That does not mean, however, that any of the E158 measurements imply
Lorentz violation. Indeed, they can be cast in terms of
expectation values of Lorentzinvariant observables.
The one our paper was concerned with, the transversely
polarized singlespin asymmetry, can be written as
< \eps_{\mu_1\mu_2\mu_3\mu_4} k_{e_1}^{\mu_1} k_{e_1'}^{\mu_2}
k_{e_2}^{\mu_3} n^{\mu_4} >
where k_{e_1} and k_{e_1'} are incoming and outgoing electron momenta,
k_{e_2} is the target electron momentum, and n is the spin vector
for the incoming electron, which should satisfy n_\mu k_{e_1}^\mu = 0.
All of these are Lorentzcovariant 4vectors. Contracting them with the
Lorentzcovariant LeviCivita tensor \eps gives a Lorentzinvariant
quantity, which can be evaluated in any frame. In the target rest frame
it becomes < S_e . (k_{e} x k_{e'}) >
(see our eq. (1)).
E158 also measures a longitudinally polarized, parityviolating,
asymmetry. This can be stated even more simply than the above,
as an expectation value of
< n_\mu k_{e_2}^\mu >
This is simpler to evaluate first in the centerofmass frame,
where it is easier to see that it is proportional to the rightleft
asymmetry. Boosting to the lab frame, the component of the spin along
the beam direction doesn't change, and it still represents such an
asymmetry.
Sometimes the term "helicity" is used as a slightly sloppy shorthand for
something Lorentz invariant, like n_\mu k_{e_2}^\mu.
For "reasonable" boosts (but not all, as you realize), the
two quantities will have the same sign.
I hope that answers your question.
Best Regards,
Lance 

Back to top 


jcyoon
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 Posts: 213

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:57 pm Post subject: RE: Parity Violation at E158 


Sun 20041003 1:38 AM
Dear Professor Dixon,
I would like to appreciate your kind answer and time.
I agree in most of frame the observation of E158 is valid and it represents
a certain asymmetry, but I am concerned with a theoretical aspects.
This may be argued by the following.
Let us say we have physical observations of lefthanded and righthanded electrons
in the lab frame. Since it is massive, both could be observed as that of righthanded electron
from a certain frame of refence. Therefore, our analysis is based on a specific frame
of reference does not hold in other frame and this explanation violates Lorentz invariance,
since it is not a frameindependent intrinsic property.
I believe that this is quite a reasonable doubt to the theoretical approximation of massless
limit, since the fundamentality of helicity is subjected to this approximation. In the massless limit,
the helicity is a good quantum number but not if massive and the helicity definition is not even
clear in rest frame. This approximation changes notagoodquantumnumber into a good quantum
number.
As long as the theory is limited by this aspect, it would be rather natural to investigate and
view the spin dependency of interactions, which may lead us to new physics.
I would like to arppreciate if you can help me on this issue.
Thanks,
J.C. Yoon 

Back to top 


Lance Dixon
Joined: 28 Sep 2006 Posts: 4

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:59 pm Post subject: RE: Parity Violation at E158 


Sun 20041003 1:48 AM
Dear Dr. Yoon,
[quote="J.C. Yoon"] Let us say we have physical observations of lefthanded and righthanded
electrons
in the lab frame. Since it is massive, both could be observed as that of
righthanded electron
from a certain frame of refence. Therefore, our analysis is based on a
specific frame
of reference does not hold in other frame and this explanation violates
Lorentz invariance,
since it is not a frameindependent intrinsic property.[/quote]
I guess you did not actually read my reply, in which I explained
to you how to recast the E158 measurements in terms of expectation values
of frameindependent quantities?
[quote="J.C. Yoon"] I believe that this is quite a reasonable doubt to the theoretical
approximation of massless
limit, since the fundamentality of helicity is subjected to this
approximation. In the massless limit,
the helicity is a good quantum number but not if massive and the helicity
definition is not even
clear in rest frame. This approximation changes notagoodquantumnumber
into a good quantum
number.[/quote]
There are plenty of other examples of approximations turning
notagoodquantum numbers into good quantum numbers (quark masses & SU(2)
or SU(3), parity invariance neglecting the weak interactions, etc.).
I don't think that casts any doubt on the possibility of taking the
massless limit. (It is trickier than some others, due to additional
collinear divergences, but still can be done consistently.)
[quote="J.C. Yoon"] it would be rather natural to investigate and
view the spin dependency of interactions, which may lead us to new physics.[/quote]
That's what E158 is hoping too.
Best Regards,
Lance 

Back to top 


jcyoon
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 Posts: 213

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject: RE: Parity Violation at E158 


Sun 20041003 2:59 AM
Dear Professor Dixon,
It looks like I did not understand your point in the following.
I would like to apology for this and appreciate if you could explain this point again
if I have mistaken.
[quote="On Saturday, October 02, 2004 9:48 AM, Lance Dixon"] E158 also measures a longitudinally polarized, parityviolating,
asymmetry. This can be stated even more simply than the above,
as an expectation value of
< n_\mu k_{e_2}^\mu >
This is simpler to evaluate first in the centerofmass frame,
where it is easier to see that it is proportional to the rightleft
asymmetry. Boosting to the lab frame, the component of the spin along
the beam direction doesn't change, and it still represents such an
asymmetry.[/quote]
Though this measument is valid in the CM and the lab frame, I thought this is
only valid within "reasonable" boosts and thus theoretically there exist some frames
the analysis do not hold.
Thanks for your patience and time.
Thanks,
J.C. Yoon 

Back to top 


Lance Dixon
Joined: 28 Sep 2006 Posts: 4

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:02 pm Post subject: RE: Parity Violation at E158 


Sun 20041003 3:20 AM
Dear Dr. Yoon,
[quote="J.C. Yoon"] >E158 also measures a longitudinally polarized, parityviolating,
>asymmetry. This can be stated even more simply than the above,
>as an expectation value of
>< n_\mu k_{e_2}^\mu >
>This is simpler to evaluate first in the centerofmass frame,
>where it is easier to see that it is proportional to the rightleft
>asymmetry. Boosting to the lab frame, the component of the spin along
>the beam direction doesn't change, and it still represents such an
>asymmetry.
Though this measument is valid in the CM and the lab frame, I thought this is
only valid within "reasonable" boosts and thus theoretically there exist
some frames
the analysis do not hold.[/quote]
The _measurement_ is valid in all frames, because it is of a
Lorentzinvariant observable. The _interpretation_ as a
(right  left)/(right + left) asymmetry
is valid in "reasonable" frames.
But a very large boost along the beam axis can cause the beam
electron as well as the target electron to be travelling "backwards
along the beam axis, and therefore switch the helicity of the beam
electron. The _interpretation_ of the quantity would
then be of a (left  right)/(left + right) asymmetry.
Lance 

Back to top 


jcyoon
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 Posts: 213

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:21 pm Post subject: RE: Parity Violation at E158 


Thu 20041007 3:40 AM
Dear Professor Dixon,
I am sorry for late reply.
I agree with your explanation, but I still find this theoretical
explanation(_interpretation_) unsatisfactory.
This explains a Lorentzinvariant measurement as a Lorentz violating
quantity while it does not provide the exact theoretical prediction
so that we could estimate how accurate this approximation is.
Thanks,
J.C. Yoon 

Back to top 


jcyoon
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 Posts: 213

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:28 pm Post subject: RE: Parity Violation at E158 


Sat 20041113 8:47 AM
Dear Professor Dixon,
I am afraid if you find this email annoying and sincerely apologize
for bothering you, but I would like to let you know I am still waiting for
you response.
I would be grateful if you can share your opinion with me.
Thanks,
J.C. Yoon 

Back to top 


Lance Dixon
Joined: 28 Sep 2006 Posts: 4

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject: RE: Parity Violation at E158 


Sun 20041114 2:01 AM
Dear Dr. Yoon,
I'm sorry, I did not realize that your email required a reply.
You said you agreed with my explanation, but found it unsatisfactory.
All I can do is apologize, and hope that you will be able to
write down the exact, massdependent, Lorentzinvariant description
of the experiment to your own satisfaction. It should not be
very difficult to do, actually it was probably done by Barut and Fronsdal, or
DeRaad and Ng (in the reference list of our paper).
Best Regards,
Lance 

Back to top 


jcyoon
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 Posts: 213

Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:31 pm Post subject: RE: Parity Violation at E158 


Tue 20041116 5:55 AM
Dear Professor Dixon,
I would like to appreciate you kind response, but I think there are
somethings I need to make clear.
Please forgive me for taking up your precious time.
If you allow me, I would like to bring up more subtle point here.
The weak interactions was originally understood as having a different
structure(chirality: 1 \pm \gamma_5) than the em interactions by Fermi and
others in early stage(Feynman and GellMann, PR 109 (1958) 193, Sudarshan
and Marshak, PR 109 (1958) 1860 and also Barut and Fronsdal and
DeRaad and Ng). However, the Standard Model suggested that, instead of interpreting
this as a property of interaction structure, we should interpret this as interaction of the
left or righthanded massive fermions.
Here I am trying to argue that the subtle distinction between these seeminglyalternative
interpretations are quite significant and something that cannot be compromised.
First, the massless limit approximation in massive fermion in Standard Model is Lorentz
violating. We can prove this by starting with the exact Dirac solution in the rest frame and
boost it and make approximation(as you know, we can find this in usual introduction of field
theory book such Peskin and Shroeder) and now boost this approximated one back to the
rest frame, where we find that the exact ones cannot be achieved by Lorentz transformation
of the approximated one. Therefore, for massive fermion, there is no purely left or righthanded
states without Lorentz violation. In E158 experiments, no matter how high the momentum is,
we should not neglect the depressed component. This is the point people think of the chirality
of structure and say that it would not matter since even if we have the other components, the
interactions does not associate with it. As matter of fact, the calculation of Lorentz invariant
observation should be done with the exact solution of Dirac equation in the rest frame in stead
of the approximated one in the boosted frame, but the calculation should be the same due to
the structure of weak interactions. However, it is still incorrect to accept the property of fermion
state conflicting with Dirac equation and Lorentz invariance just because of the structure of
interactions. Also, the calculation of Lorentz invariant observation should be done with the exact
solution of Dirac equation in the rest frame in stead of the approximated one in the boosted frame.
Second, it is, therefore, correct to interpret weak interaction as one with a certain structure than one
of massive fermion with definite helicity. Though it looks the same, there is quite sharp distinction
between these two interpretations. If the weak interactions have a certain structure different from
the em interactions and this indicates the difference in the fundamental symmetry of parity,
then these two interactions are fundamentally different from each other so that the unification of
electroweak interaction is contradicted.
I believe this would be a good place to stop and ask your opinion before stepping in more difficult
questions.
Thanks,
J.C. Yoon 

Back to top 




You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
