jcYoon's Physics Forum Index jcYoon's Physics
Newsgroup and Email Discussion
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Parity Violation at E158

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    jcYoon's Physics Forum Index -> Professor Lance Dixon
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jcyoon



Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:53 pm    Post subject: Parity Violation at E158 Reply with quote

lance@slac.stanford.edu
Fri 2004-10-01 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
View user's profile Send private message
Lance Dixon



Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Parity Violation at E158 Reply with quote

Sun 2004-10-03 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 Lorentz-invariant observables.
The one our paper was concerned with, the transversely
polarized single-spin 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 Lorentz-covariant 4-vectors. Contracting them with the
Lorentz-covariant Levi-Civita tensor \eps gives a Lorentz-invariant
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, parity-violating,
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 center-of-mass frame,
where it is easier to see that it is proportional to the right-left
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
View user's profile Send private message
jcyoon



Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:57 pm    Post subject: RE: Parity Violation at E158 Reply with quote

Sun 2004-10-03 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 left-handed and right-handed electrons
in the lab frame. Since it is massive, both could be observed as that of right-handed 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 frame-independent 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 not-a-good-quantum-number 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
View user's profile Send private message
Lance Dixon



Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:59 pm    Post subject: RE: Parity Violation at E158 Reply with quote

Sun 2004-10-03 1:48 AM

Dear Dr. Yoon,

[quote="J.C. Yoon"] Let us say we have physical observations of left-handed and right-handed
electrons
in the lab frame. Since it is massive, both could be observed as that of
right-handed 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 frame-independent 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 frame-independent 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 not-a-good-quantum-number
into a good quantum
number.[/quote]

There are plenty of other examples of approximations turning
not-a-good-quantum 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
View user's profile Send private message
jcyoon



Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:01 pm    Post subject: RE: Parity Violation at E158 Reply with quote

Sun 2004-10-03 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, parity-violating,
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 center-of-mass frame,
where it is easier to see that it is proportional to the right-left
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
View user's profile Send private message
Lance Dixon



Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:02 pm    Post subject: RE: Parity Violation at E158 Reply with quote

Sun 2004-10-03 3:20 AM

Dear Dr. Yoon,

[quote="J.C. Yoon"] >E158 also measures a longitudinally polarized, parity-violating,
>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 center-of-mass frame,
>where it is easier to see that it is proportional to the right-left
>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
Lorentz-invariant 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
View user's profile Send private message
jcyoon



Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:21 pm    Post subject: RE: Parity Violation at E158 Reply with quote

Thu 2004-10-07 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 Lorentz-invariant 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
View user's profile Send private message
jcyoon



Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:28 pm    Post subject: RE: Parity Violation at E158 Reply with quote

Sat 2004-11-13 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
View user's profile Send private message
Lance Dixon



Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:29 pm    Post subject: RE: Parity Violation at E158 Reply with quote

Sun 2004-11-14 2:01 AM

Dear Dr. Yoon,

I'm sorry, I did not realize that your e-mail 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, mass-dependent, Lorentz-invariant 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
View user's profile Send private message
jcyoon



Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:31 pm    Post subject: RE: Parity Violation at E158 Reply with quote

Tue 2004-11-16 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 Gell-Mann, 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 right-handed massive fermions.

Here I am trying to argue that the subtle distinction between these seemingly-alternative
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 right-handed
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
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    jcYoon's Physics Forum Index -> Professor Lance Dixon All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
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