jcYoon's Physics
Newsgroup and Email Discussion

 Favor Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:04 pm    Post subject: Y16 Thurs 2007-07-12 6:03 PM Dear Professor Okun, I am glad that we have made some progress. Here I attached Y1, O1 for reference. In my opinion, the main statement in Y1 that helicity can be observed as opposite under Lorentz transformations is correct. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:05 pm    Post subject: Y17 Sun 2007-07-15 5:59 AM Dear Professor Okun, Here is my review on Y2, O2. In Y2, I still think the helicity and thus polarization of electron observed in one frame can be observed as opposite from other reference frame boosted in momentum direction. >Do you still believe that parity-violating >cross-sections violate Lorentz invariance? The one thing I have corrected thanks to you is that the total cross sections and lifetimes of weak interactions do not violate Lorentz invariance, since they are the same for left- and right-handed helicity. And now the issue is whether parity-violating differential cross-sections violate Lorentz invariance. Though I have to speculate on this more, right now I think that under Lorentz invariance the differential cross sections in the center-of-mass frame should be invariant whether the initial incoming fermions are observed as left- or right-handed helicity in any other frames. The differential cross sections and matrix element of weak interactions, therefore, should be understood as whether the spin orientation is toward or outward relative to the target atoms, which would be invariant in any other boosted frame. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:06 pm    Post subject: Y18 Tue 2007-08-07 9:17 AM Dear Professor Okun, Here is my review on Y3, O3. I am afraid that I could not get back to sending my review emails sooner. Though I have been quite busy with other matters, I have managed to study more about the SLAC experiments. One correction that I have found is that parity-violating asymmetry does NOT vanish when integrated over the angles, which I have mistaken from 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. Though there are more detailed calculations I should check, my claim of Lorentz violation remains valid not only for matrix elements, but also implicitly for total cross sections and lifetimes, except that they are not explicitly measured in the experiments as I thought. Looking back on Y3, O3, I do not see any serious problem of my statements, but they were rather vague as in O3 you have interpreted my claim as that the Lorentz variance of helicity itself is Lorentz violation, not as Lorentz violation of matrix elements. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:06 pm    Post subject: Y19 Thurs 2007-08-09 12:22 PM Dear Professor Okun, Here is my review on Y4, O4. Our misunderstanding whether it was Lorentz violation of matrix element or that of helicity still remained as a critical point. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:07 pm    Post subject: Y20 Mon 2007-08-13 5:41 AM Dear Professor Okun, Here is my review on Y5, O5. Here I clarified the Lorentz violation I meant to say was that of matrix elements and implicitly cross-sections. You have requested me to deal with analysis of all the parity violation experiments, which I have left out some of them. And you have accused me of intentionally excluding some experiments, but once again I would like to make it sure that I have no such intention to deceive you. The clarification on my terminology was followed in the next couple of emails. Also, I think, though all the detailed analyses on those experiments that have been performed are quite necessary, considering that we are to deal with over decades of experimental development, the first thing we should settle down is whether my argument itself is theoretically cogent and sound, then later we should carefully investigate my theoretical perspective is consistent in every experimental measurement. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:08 pm    Post subject: Y21 Tue 2007-08-14 5:39 AM Dear Professor Okun, Here is my review on Y6, O6. As my description of experiments was inaccurate, you requested to use more careful terminology, which I agreed to do so in the following emails. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:08 pm    Post subject: Y22 Thurs 2007-08-16 5:15 AM Dear Professor Okun, Here is my review on Y7, O7. Here we made some progress as I revised my previous emails with care. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:09 pm    Post subject: Y23 Fri 2007-08-17 9:08 PM Dear Professor Okun, Here is my review on Y8, O8. The critical point was that the Lorentz invariance of matrix element and cross sections means that the evaluated value of matrix elements under Lorentz transformations of fermions should be the same, whereas the parity-violating asymmetries imply different matrix elements between Lorentz-transformed fermions. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:09 pm    Post subject: Y24 Wed 2007-08-22 6:06 AM Dear Professor Okun, Here is my review on Y9, O9. As I have apologized in the following email Y10, in Y9 I asked you a couple of questions that were inappropriate, which was due to my misunderstanding and confusion. The critical point is that in the standard model 4-vector polarization vector is approximated as we use (1 + \gamma_{5}) instead of (1 + \gamma_{5} {s\!\!\slash}_{i}}). For QED, due to s_{i} p_{i} = 0, (1 + \gamma_{5} {s\!\!\slash}_{i}}) would have given the same differential cross sections whether it is left- or right-handed helicity(Bjorken & Drell, Relativistic QM, 140p), but for the weak interactions and the Standard Model, (1 + \gamma_{5}) will lead to the different differential cross sections depending on helicity and thus spin orientation. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:10 pm    Post subject: Y25 Tue 2007-08-28 6:08 AM Dear Professor Okun, Here is my review on Y10, O10. It looks like my argument on s_i p_i = 0 was rather off the critical point and I misunderstood 'stable' as 'at rest', for which I sincerely apologize. For QED calculation shown in Bjorken & Drell, Relativistic QM, 140p, the property of s_i p_i = 0 is the very reason that the differential cross sections are the same and thus Lorentz-invariant regardless of spin polarization. For the weak interactions and the Standard Model, however, despite the property of s_i p_i = 0 the matrix element shows spin and momentum dependency due to (1 + \gamma_{5}) and thus the probability of a decay may depend on spin and velocity as shown in the first eq. on page 110 in "Weak interaction of elementary particles," though the issue would be more clear when it comes to the spin and momentum of initial particles as in the Standard Model experiments such as SLAC E158 and SLD. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:11 pm    Post subject: Y26 Tue 2007-08-28 6:15 PM Dear Professor Okun, Here is my review on Y11, O11. Here my misunderstanding of "stable" as "at rest" embarrassingly goes on. And I agree with your calculation on page 109-110 in "Weak interaction of elementary particles," which shows that the probability of decay depends on velocity and spin. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:11 pm    Post subject: Y27 Wed 2007-08-29 5:20 AM Dear Professor Okun, Here is my review on Y12, O12. Here is another embarrassing misunderstanding of "stable" as "at rest." Before we discuss the lifetime, it would be more accurate to deal with the matrix elements first. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:12 pm    Post subject: Y28 Wed 2007-08-29 4:21 PM Dear Professor Okun, Here is my review on Y13, O13. Finally I have clarified my misunderstanding and my claim will be later focused on the Lorentz invariance of matrix elements. Sincerely yours, J.C. Yoon
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:13 pm    Post subject: Y29 Thurs 2007-08-30 5:32 AM Dear Professor Okun, Here is my review on Y14, O14. Here I tried to point out that in SLAC E158 the cross sections vary depending on the helicity of initial particle, which makes the cross sections subject to the Lorentz transformation. Sincerely yous, J.C. Yoon
jcyoon

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:13 pm    Post subject: Y30 Fri 2007-08-31 5:34 AM Dear Professor Okun, Here is my review on Y15, O15. In Y15, my statement that parity-violating asymmetry in SLAC E158 vanished when integrated over the angles have been misled by a 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, as mentioned in Y18. In SLAC E158, what has been measured in experiments is the asymmetry of differential cross sections, but its theoretical calculation in E. Derman and W. Marciano, Ann. Phys. 121, 147 (1979) implies that the total cross sections are also different depending on the helicity of initial fermion. And the experimental measurement of SLD is considered as the asymmetry of total cross sections, for example, A_{e} in Phys. Rev. Lett. 90:141804, 2003, explicitly claiming that massive fermions with different helicity states are distinguishable particles with different coupling constants, as in the Standard Model, by M. Swartz, SLAC Beam Line 25N1, (1995) 19. Therefore, my claim of Lorentz violation remains valid not only for matrix elements, but also for total cross sections from SLD measurement. 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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next Page 3 of 5

 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