jcYoon's Physics
Newsgroup and Email Discussion

 No Subject Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
Zhi-qiang Shi

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 19

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:30 am    Post subject: No Subject Attachment: Calculation on the lifetime of polarized muons in flight.pdf; 060219.pdf Dear Dr. J. C. Yoon: I am very interested in your discussion about Lorentz violation of the Standard Model because it is closely related to my research. In my papers (please see the attached files), a new parity violation phenomenon, the lifetime asymmetry, has been predicted. We discussed the difference among the spin states, the helicity states and chirality states, and obtained mathematical relation between the helicity states and chirality states. We have calculated the lifetime of polarized muons. The result shows that the lifetime of right-handed polarized muons is always greater than that of left-handed polarized muons with the same speed in flight. Differing from SLAC E158 experiment, the lifetime asymmetry is the left-right parity-violating asymmetry in the charged weak current. In another paper, the experimental test problem of the lifetime asymmetry was discussed and some possible experiments which might directly test the lifetime asymmetry were proposed. In specially, the SLD experiment (left-right cross section asymmetry in Z boson production by $e^+ e^-$ collisions) and SLAC E158 experiment were analyzed in detail. Those two experiments, the left-right parity-violating asymmetry in the neutral weak current, are the importantly experimental base of the lifetime asymmetry. I did not know the SLD experiment and SLAC E158 experiment when I started to consider the lifetime asymmetry in 2001. In 2004 Dr. R. Belusevic (a Japan scholar) made many helpful discussions about the lifetime asymmetry together with me and brought to my attention the SLD experiment. Until fairly recently I find SLAC E158 experiment in your paper. Now, this paper has been modified and E158 experiment has been added to it. Since the lifetime asymmetry was proposed, a question I have often been asked is whether the lifetime asymmetry violates Lorentz invariance of the weak interactions. But as yet I have not found a convincing answer. Therefore, I am pleased to discuss the question with you and would like to hear from you with any comments and reviews. Sincerely yours, Zhi-qiang Shi
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

Zhi-qiang Shi

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 19

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:34 am    Post subject: Re: Lorentz violation and muon lifetimes Tue 2007-04-17 11:17 PM Dear Dr. J. C. Yoon: Thank you for you email and elaborating your point. Yes, a correct theory must be Lorentz invariant, and so is the Standard Model. The Lagrangian density of the weak interactions is a Lorentz scalar and, meanwhile, a fermion's helicity can change its sign under a Lorentz transformations when the observer's velocity exceeds the fermion's one. Therefore, it used to be believed that the Lagrangian seems the helicity independence. On the other hand, however, the Lagrangian is not space inversion invariant because parity nonconservation and, meanwhile, a fermion's helicity can also changes sign under space inversion. Therefore, it indicates that the Lagrangian is the helicity dependence. Obviously, these two viewpoints contradict each other. It poses a rather puzzling question of whether the Lagrangian is helicity dependent, or rather there would be a paradox logically. To decide unequivocally the helicity dependence puzzle, we have to clarify what the Lagrangian means. Based on Dirac equation, a massive fermion can be expressed in terms of the spin states or helicity states. If the Lagrangian was written in terms of the helicity states, like Eq. (41) and (45) in my paper (hep-ph/0211051), then it would result in Lorentz violation and the helicity dependence puzzle. In the Standard Model, however, the Lagrangian can only be written in terms of the spin states, like Eq. (25) in my paper (hep-ph/0211051), and it will result in that the Lagrangian remains unchanged under proper Lorentz transformations. In this way, the Lagrangian is still Lorentz invariant and the helicity dependence puzzle can also be reasonably resolved. Of course, another question is raised. That is why the Lagrangian can not be written in terms of the helicity states. Perhaps as Max said: For massive free fermions, plane wave solutions are not eigenstates of helicity”?! As MikeM has mentioned, “there's an important distinction between helicity and chirality.” From this thread, we can also explain the neutrino issue. In the Standard Model, there are no the right-handed (RH) chirality neutrinos and the RH helicity neutrinos. If neutrinos are massive, there are still no the RH chirality neutrinos, but there are the RH helicity neutrinos. From Eqs. (18) and (19) in my paper (hep-ph/0211051), when the RH chirality states are taken out we easily find \frac{u_{Rh}(p)}{u_{Lh}(p)} =\frac{\sqrt{1-\beta}u^0_{L1}}{\sqrt{1+\beta}u^0_{L2}}. Where u^0_{L1} and u^0_{L2} are the left-handed (LH) chirality neutrino in the rest frame, u_{Rh}(p) is the RH helicity neutrino, and u_{Lh}(p) is the LH helicity neutrino. Obviously, only if \beta=1, there is no the RH helicity neutrino, otherwise the RH helicity neutrino will exist in despite of the RH chirality neutrino absents. Therefore parity is violated though neutrinos are massive. Sincerely yours, Zhi-qiang Shi
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:35 am    Post subject: RE: Lorentz violation and muon lifetimes Thur 2007-04-19 5:37 AM Dear Professor Zhi-qiang Shi, I appreciate your kind reply. Though I agree with most of your statements, I would like to clarify a couple of critical points. The heart of the Standard Model is to theoretically and experimentally identify a massive fermion in terms of chirality, $\psi_{L,R} = (1 \pm \gamma_5)\psi$ and thus the equations (25) in your paper (hep-ph/0211051) is not the Standard Model, but the weak interaction theory; the weak interaction structures with one of (1 \pm \gamma_5) differs from QED with both (1 \pm \gamma_5) or the Standard Model with (1 \pm \gamma_5) shifted to the particle part. And this critical feature of the Standard Model is what it makes the claim of electroweak unification possible, combining QED or the weak theory. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
Zhi-qiang Shi

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 19

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:36 am    Post subject: Re: Lorentz violation and muon lifetimes Tue 2007-05-01 10:45 PM Dear Dr. J. C. Yoon: Thank you very much for you email. I am very pleased to learn that you are corresponding with SLAC E158 collaborations and enquiring about whether there was any possible lapse in their experiments in order to confirm Lorentz violation. If you have received their answer, would you please send me a copy file of the answer? Moreover, I would very much appreciate receiving your comment in the corresponding journal on their recent publication. By the way, I can not enter your website ( http://www.jcyoon.com/phpBB ). Could you help me? Sincerely yours, Zhi-qiang Shi
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:38 am    Post subject: RE: Lorentz violation and muon lifetimes Wed 2007-05-09 5:39 PM Attachment: 2007CommentE158Sumit.pdf Dear Professor Zhi-qian Shi, It is my pleasure to share my opinion with you. I wish I could share more information about the SLAC E158 issue, but it will be limited as Stanford University requested confidentiality right after our previous correspondence, though I do not see any good reason for this confidentiality. Here I attached my comment on E158, but the editors found it unsuitable for publication without any referee’s review. I will be grateful to hear your opinion about this comment and why it is rejected. By the way, my website is locked up for security reason. If I can spare some time, I will think about the one open to the public. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
Zhi-qiang Shi

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 19

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:40 am    Post subject: about your comment Mon 2007-05-14 12:48 PM Dear Dr. J. C. Yoon: Thank you very much for you email and the attached paper. I’ve read your paper. It might be a main reason rejected that you don’t gave a positive criticism for E158 experiment in your comment. Secondly, I find the script is not very clear somewhere. For example, you said: “what the asymmetry APV measures depends on whether fermions are massive or massless”. I can not understand it. In my opinion, the asymmetry always exists even though fermions are massless. As mentioned in my paper, when fermion is massless \beta=1, lifetime asymmetry (A) reaches its maximum. I think that we have similar ideas about helicity, chirality and Lorentz invariance. Let us discuss further. I hope and believe the discussion between us will not only clarify the understanding in physics, but also promote our friendship. Keep communication. By the way, you said: “Stanford University requested confidentiality right after our previous correspondence”. Why is it related to our correspondence? Sincerely yours, Zhi-qiang Shi
Zhi-qiang Shi

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 19

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:44 am    Post subject: my paper Tue 2007-06-05 5:18 PM Attachment: 0705.3711v1.pdf Dear Professor J. C. Yoon: Enclosed herewith is a new paper, hep-ph/0705.3711, entitled “Left-Right Asymmetry of Weak Interaction Mass of Polarized Fermions in Flight”. Your papers are quoted in it. You might enjoy reading the paper. I would be pleased to here from you with any comments and reviews. Sincerely yours, Zhi-qiang Shi
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:45 am    Post subject: RE: my paper Tue 2007-06-12 5:43 AM Dear Professor Zhi-qiang Shi, First of all, I would like to appreciate your kind opinion regarding my comment on SLAC E158. And you may refer to me as Dr. or just J.C. Yoon. As you may have noticed from my sluggish reply, I am in no academic position and right now even half an hour a day for physics is luxurious for me. It is my pleasure to have your paper in handy. As matter of fact, I have been pondering about your previous work from time to time, which I found very helpful. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:46 am    Post subject: SLAC E158 Tue 2007-07-13 5:50 AM Dear Professor Zhi-qiang Shi, While discussing with Professor L.B. Okun, I have realized that the SLAC E158 measurements were not on the total cross sections, but the differential cross sections. What they have denoted in PRL 95:081601, 2006 as "cross section" is "differential cross section," and the parity-violating asymmetry vanishes when integrated over the center-of-mass angle for the total cross sections. Therefore, the Lorentz violation in the SLAC E158 should be limited on the matrix element, as the lifetimes and cross sections can be identical for left- and right-handed helicity. I believe it could be legitimate to call the asymmetry of matrix elements between left- and right-handed helicity as "Lorentz violation," as long as they call it as "parity violation." But I am rather reluctant to do so, since it could be confusing to use with the Lorentz violation of lifetimes, not just that of matrix element, and the details of calculation which I will be checking sooner or later are different for your case and the SLAC E158. I am awfully sorry for misleading you to such a mistake, especially in your article. Please forgive my imprudence. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
Zhi-qiang Shi

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 19

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:49 am    Post subject: Re: SLAC E158 Wed 2007-07-18 10:38 PM Attachment: R.S.Panvini 1996 cross section asymmetry.pdf Dear Dr. J. C. Yoon: Thank you very much for you email. Enclosed herewith are two papers for your reference. First, I think that Professor L.B. Okun’s idea may be false. I do not find any “differential cross section” words in PRL 95:081601, 2005. Klejda Bega realizingly pointed out in his thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy that \sigma_R and \sigma_L are the scattering cross sections, integrated over the entire azimuth, for incident right- and left-handed electrons, respectively. In experiment, the Møller electrons were focused on the region of detector which is an integrating calorimeter. The E158 spectrometer was designed to satisfy the following criteria: acceptance along the entire azimuth of scattered Møller electrons in the momentum range of 12-24 GeV/c. Second, in my paper, experimental tests on the lifetime asymmetry, the SLD experiment (left-right cross section asymmetry in Z boson production by $e^+ e^-$ collisions) was analyzed in detail. It shows that the cross section is integrating cross section, not differential cross section. There are mathmatical calculations of integrating cross section in Panvini’s paper (Report No. SLAC-PUB-7375, December 1996). Therefore, I believe that the cross section in SLAC E158 and SLD measurement is integrating cross section and it depends on incident right- and left-handed electrons. Please consider my opinion again. Sincerely yours, Zhi-qiang Shi
Zhi-qiang Shi

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 19

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:50 am    Post subject: Re: SLAC E158 Wed 2007-07-18 10:42 PM Attachment: Klejda_thesis.rar Enclosed herewith is another paper.
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:52 am    Post subject: RE: SLAC E158 Mon 2007-07-30 5:28 AM Dear Professor Zhi-qiang Shi, Thanks for your kind and elaborate reply, which gave me an opportunity to go through SLAC E158 papers and theses. First of all, let me clarify that it is not exactly Professor L.B. Okun who pointed out the SLAC E158 cross section issue, and I am the one who is responsible if it goes wrong. As soon as our discussion is over, I will post my correspondence with Prof. L.B. Okun. In my opinion, “total cross section” that I have used to think is quite difficult to directly measure in experiments, since it should detect all final states, energy ranges, and directions of scattering events, though in some cases “total cross sections” are implied. In this sense, your terminology of “integrating cross section” is more accurate. The SLAC E158 documents are not clear about “cross section,” especially in experimental ones. As you have pointed out, the Møller detectors are located at 60 m downstream of the target, approximately azimuthally symmetric about the beam axis. With this kind of setup, we may detect most of the Møller scattering electrons, but we can not guarantee it to detect all the scattering electrons, since some electrons scattered from the target such as backward scattering could deviate the Møller detectors. This can be confirmed from their analysis of the parity-violating asymmetry A_{pv}. If they thought it was cross section integrated over the center-of-mass angles, then they should have theoretically integrated A_{pv} over the center-of-mass angle for y=sin^{2} \theta_{cm}/2, but their calculation takes only approximation of y. Therefore, what they meant by “cross section” is rather “differential cross section” as denoted so in theoretical calculation of Derman and Marciano, Annals Phys.121:147,1979. However, my statement that the parity-violating asymmetry vanishes when integrated over the center-of-mass angle for the total cross sections was wrong, which was due to the typo in Eq. (1.83) on page 24 in thesis “A Search for New Physics at the TeV Scale Via a Precise Measurement of the Weak Mixing Angle in Moller Scattering” by Waled S. Emam, comparing with the correct equation on page 19, thesis “Precision Beam Parameter Monitoring in a Measurement of the Weak Mixing Angle in Moller Scattering” by Mark Stephen Cooke. > and the parity-violating asymmetry vanishes when integrated over the center-of-mass angle for the total cross > sections. Therefore, my original statement of Lorentz violation remains valid, except that for SLAC E158 experiments the total cross section are not directly measured but implied. As for SLD, though I have to study more, I agree with you that both the experimental measurements and the theoretical calculation have been integrated over the angles and its nonzero value implies Lorentz violation. Note that SLD’s detectors are located around where the scattering occurs, while the SLAC E158 Møller detectors are at a distance from the target. Again, I am very grateful for you opinion. Had it not for your help, I could have not checked and corrected my miscalculation on the integrating cross section. And I hope you would generously understand my lack of accuracy in calculation, as I do not have enough time to concentrate on this issue. If there are further lapses in my argument, please feel free to let me know. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
Zhi-qiang Shi

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 19

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:53 am    Post subject: Please send the paper Sat 2007-08-04 11:19 AM Dear Dr. J. C. Yoon: Thank you very much for you email. I have not got the paper, Parity Violating Asymmetries in Polarized Electron Scattering, by E. Derman and W. J. Marciano in Annals of Physics, 121:147, 1979. Would please send it to me via internet? Sincerely yours, Zhi-qiang Shi
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:55 am    Post subject: RE: Please send the paper Sun 2007-08-05 10:20 AM Attachment: DermanMarciano79.pdf Dear Professor Zhi-qiang Shi, Here I have attached Derman and Marciano, which is a scanned version from the SLAC spires. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=find+a+derman+and+date+1979+ If there is any other thing that I can help, please let me know. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 All times are GMTGoto page 1, 2, 3  Next Page 1 of 3

 Jump to: Select a forum Newsgroup----------------sci.physics.research Selected Emails----------------Professor Douglas J. NewmanProfessor Zhi-qiang ShiProfessor Steven WeinbergProfessor Sheldon Lee GlashowProfessor Gerard 't HooftProfessor Warren SiegelProfessor Michael E. PeskinProfessor Martin GruenewaldProfessor Pierre RamondProfessor Lance DixonProfessor OW GreenbergProfessor Emlyn W. HughesProfessor Hitoshi MurayamaProfessor Stanley J. BrodskyProfessor Paul SouderProfessor Mary K GaillardProfessor L.B. Okun
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