Two Standard Model Issues: No-Higgs and QCD Contradictions.

Home Contact Me

 


Two Higgs related articles can be found here.

For reading an article which describes about half a dozen of different errors of the Higgs theory Click here .

The article linked herein explains why the Higgs boson does not exist. Click here and see section 4.

Two kinds of LHC issues are discussed below:
  1. For reading a short introductory text Click here .

  2. For reading some remarks on the Higgs boson declaration Click here .

  3. For reading some remarks on the March 2013 Higgs news, Click here .

  4. For reading some remarks on the 125 GeV two γ effect, Click here .

  5. For reading a review article demonstrating the overwhelming advantage of the Regular Charge-Monopole Theory over QCD Click here.
  6. For reading an analysis of implications of expected LHC proton-proton cross section data and of related QCD problematic issues, see below.


The main elements of the basis for the discussion are listed below. A more detailed analysis can be found in the references.
  1. The Regular Charge-Monopole Theory (RCMT) is the main theoretical basis [1,2].

  2. Quarks carry one (negative) unit of magnetic monopole and baryons have a core that carries three (positive) units of magnetic monopole [3,4]. Therefore a baryon is a magnetic monopole structure that is analogous to a nonionized atom. Thus, quarks in a baryon are analogous to electrons in an atom.

  3. A usage of very few fundamental experimental data enables this approach to provides an interpretation for not a very small number of properties of strongly interacting particles [3-5].

  4. Some experimental data indicate that the baryonic core contains closed shells of quarks, each of which is analogous to a closed shell of electrons in an atom [4]. Thus, the three valence quarks of a baryon are analogous to valence electrons of an atom and a similar correspondence holds between the closed shells of an atom and a baryon, respectively.
The first problem to be discussed here is the specific structure of the baryonic closed shells of quarks. One may expect that the situation takes the simplest case and that the core's closed shells consist of just two u quarks and two d quarks that occupy an S shell. The other extreme is the case where the baryon is analogous to a very heavy atom and the baryonic core contains many closed shells of quarks. (Below, finding the actual structure of the baryonic core is called Problem A.) The presently known proton-proton (denoted p-p) cross section data which is depicted in fig. 1 is used for describing the relevance of the LHC future data to Problem A.


Figure 1: A qualitative description of the pre-LHC p-p cross section versus the laboratory momentum P. Axes are drawn in a logarithmic scale. The continuous line denotes elastic cross section and the broken line denotes total cross section. (The accurate figure can be found in [6] - click here and see p. 12). Points A-E help the discussion (see text).


Before proceeding further, let us examine the data of fig. 1. This figure demonstrates dramatic differences between the p-p data and the corresponding deep inelastic electron-proton (denoted e-p) data. Thus, the e-p total cross section decreases with momentum like 1/p2 [7], whereas the p-p data increases for higher energies. Another issue is the relative part of elastic scattering events. It turns out that for a very high energy, the e-p elastic events take a negligible part of the total scattering events [7]. On the other hand, in the case of the corresponding p-p scattering, fig. 1 proves that elastic events take about 15% of the total scattering events. The last property proves that a proton contains a quite solid component that can take the heavy blow of the collision and leave each of the two colliding protons intact. The fact that this component is undetected in an e-p scattering, proves that it is a spinless electrically neutral component. This outcome provides a very strong support for the RCMT interpretation of hadrons, where baryons have a core [3-5].

The elastic and total cross section depicted in fig. 1 were published in the annual PDG report for quite a few years. It is explained later in this text why these plots certainly disprove QCD. It turns out that for an unclear reason, since 2013 this figure is not included in the PDG annual report any more. In particular, the overall elastic p-p plot has been removed altogether. Since people mainly use the most recent report, they cannot see that for high energy the relative portion of the elastic p-p cross section stops decreasing and that its absolute value begins to increase.

Relying on analogous properties of atomic physics, one justifies the usage of the following properties for evaluating the proton structure:
  1. Quarks (namely, negative monopoles) screen the potential (and the field) of inner positively charged monopoles. This effect is dual to screening of the nuclear charge by atomic electrons. Let us examine a point r at the proton's rest frame. Here screening variation associated with quarks' closed shells, depends on the probability of finding quarks at the appropriate geometrical spherical shell. Evidently, the volume of this spherical shell tend to zero together with r. Hence, screening effects are quite negligible at regions where the distance to the center is small enough.

  2. An analogue of the Franck-Hertz effect takes place. In particular, quarks of closed shells of the baryonic core behave as inert objects for cases where the projectile's energy is smaller than the appropriate threshold.
Using the foregoing physical ideas, one can address the elastic scattering data of fig. 1 and describe the physical basis for Problem A.
  • The decrease of the cross section on the left hand side of point A of fig. 1 represents the ordinary Coulomb interaction between the protons' electric charge. Here a Rutherford-like formula holds and the cross section decreases like 1/p2.

  • At the region of points A,B, the undulating shape of the cross section line represents the rapidly varying nuclear interactions.

  • The decreasing line between points B,C represents the region where a screening effect of the valence quarks takes place. This effect makes the line less steep than the Coulomb related line on the left hand side of point A of fig. 1.

  • The increase of the line on the right hand side of point C of fig. 1 is a proof of the existence of inner closed quark shells in the proton. Indeed, screening effects of the valence quarks decrease for a decreasing distance to the proton's center. Thus, without inner quark shells, the steepness of the decreasing interval of the line between points B,C of fig. 1, is expected to increase near point C and it should approach the Coulomb steepness seen on the left hand side of point A of the fig. 1. This expection clearly contradicts the data. Therefore, one has to look for something else. Now, the inner closed shells of quarks certainly make a quite rigid object. Such an object can take the heavy blow of a core-core collision and end up with an elastic scattering. This property explains why the elastic cross section line increases on the right hand side of point C of the fig. 1. It is interesting to note that at this energy region one also finds an increase of the total cross section [6]. The latter effect is analogous to the Franck-Hertz effect in atoms. Here the high energy collision ejects quarks from the inner shells, a process which is analogous to a deep inelastic e-p process.
At this point, one can evaluate the relevance of the expected LHC data to Problem A. Thus, if the closed shells contain a small number of quarks then, for higher energies, their screening effect as well as the rigidity of such a closed shell are expected to fade away and the elastic cross section line will start to decrease and pass near the open circle denoted by the letter D. If, on the other hand, there are many closed shells containing many quarks then the line will continue to increase and pass near the gray circle, denoted by the letter E. The LHC data will provide information on this issue.

Let us turn to QCD and the data of fig. 1. Claims stating that QCD cannot explain these data have been published in the literature in the last decade [8]. Indeed, according to QCD, a proton consists of quarks and gluons. Thus, one finds that the following points indicate very serious difficulties of QCD:
  • Deep inelastic e-p scattering proves that for a very high energy, elastic events are very rare. It means that in nearly every case, a quark that is struck violently by an electron makes an inelastic event. Therefore, one wonders what is the proton's component that takes the heavy blow of a high energy p-p collision and leaves the two protons intact and why this component is not found in the corresponding e-p scattering?

  • A QCD property called Asymptotic Freedom [9] states that the interaction strength tends to zero at the small vicinity of a QCD particle. Thus, at this region, a QCD interaction is certainly much weaker than the corresponding Coulomb-like interaction. Therefore, if this aspect of QCD holds then for very high energies, the p-p elastic cross section line is expected to manifest a steeper decrease than that of the Coulomb interaction, which is seen on the left hand side of point A of fig. 1. The data represented in fig. 1 shows that for high energy the line increases. Hence, the data contradict this QCD property.

  • A general argument. At point C of fig. 1, the elastic cross section line changes its inclination. Here it stops decreasing and begins to increase. This effect proves that for this energy, something new shows up in the proton. Now, QCD states that quarks and gluons are elementary particles that move quite freely inside the proton. Therefore, one wonders how can QCD explain why a new effect arises for this energy?



References:

[1] E. Comay Nuovo Cimento, B80, 159 (1984). click here.

[2] E. Comay Nuovo Cimento, B110, 1347 (1995). click here.

[3] E. Comay A Regular Theory of Magnetic Monopoles and Its Implications in Has the Last Word Been Said on Classical Electrodynamics? ed. A. Chubykalo, V. Onoochin, A. Espinoza and R. Smirnov-Rueda (Rinton Press, Paramus, NJ, 2004).     click here.

[4] E. Comay Apeiron, 16, 1 (2009). click here and its sequel:
      E. Comay,   click here.

[5] See the appropriate items at the linked page. click here.

[6] See p. 12 of the PDG publication. click here.

[7] D. H. Perkins, Introduction to high energy physics (Addison, Menlo Park, 1987).

[8] For reading an article, click here.

[9] H. Frauenfelder and E. M. Henley, Subatomic Physics (Prentics, New Jersey, 1991).