Proton Neutron

BIASED NUCLEON STRUCTURE

I was alerted by an important Particle Physics physicist on Robert Hofstadter results about the nucleon structure cited by me by means of the reference Rev. Modern Phys. Vol. 28, 214, 1956. He sent me the very important reference by R. Hofstadter, F. Bumiller and M. R. Yearian, Electromagnetic Structure of the Proton and Neutron (Rev. Modern Phys. Vol. 30(2), 482, 1958) in which details of the charge distribution around 0.2 fm are absent. His criticism had exactly to do with this fact. I recognize that I should have complemented my above reference and cited other references by Hofstadter and, more importantly, the interpretation by L Durand of Hofstadter results.

 

RHofstadter

 

Going deeper into the matter, we can say that the charge distributions shown in this  figure above are also due to the work of Robert R. Wilson (then at Cornell University) et al.  and also in part due to the interpretation of Hofstadter results by L. Durand as shown in the paper by Robert A. Wilson, Electric Structure of Nucleons in which one finds a similar figure for the nucleons charge densities (Figure 5). This is also mentioned in the references of Robert Wilson paper:

[3] R. HOFSTADTER and R. HERMAN – Phys. Rev. Letters 6, 293 (1961); see, however, the reinterpretation of some of these results by L. DURAND, Phys. Rev. Letters 6, 631 (1961).

 

It is also important to take into account what R. Wilson says at the beginning of the above mentioned paper

“In an age of giant accelerators, of complex experiments and of mystifying theories it is a pleasure to report on some simple experiments, made with simple equipment and having a simple interpretation – simple, that is, if one doesn’t look too closely. The electron energies now available are about 1 Gev and the de Broglie wavelength of such electrons is about  0. 2 fermis, hence we can expect to make out some of the details of the proton and neutron.

Last year at the Rochester Conference, as a result of scattering experiments made at Stanford University [ 1] with their Linac and at Cornell University [ 2] with our electron synchrotron, we were both able to report the beginning of a detailed structure in that for large momentum transfers the electric and magnetic form factors were no longer nearly equal – as had previously been believed to be true for energies less than about 500 Mev.

During the past year, the measurements at Stanford [3], [4] and at Cornell [5], [6] have been considerably refined and extended.”

 

It is important to pinpoint that these experiments and their interpretations took place before the advent of the Quark Model. This means that the interpretations were not influenced by the Quark Model and are, thus  genuine interpretations. I mention this to contrast it with the recent interpretations, completely biased by the Quark Model of point-like quarks in which the first peak of the proton charge distribution is shifted to higher r and the second peak does not appear. For example, the reader can take a look at the work by June L. Matthews Structure of the proton, neutron, and deuteron from scattering of polarized electrons by polarized gas targets.

I saw this above figure for the first time in the book Mechanics – Berkeley Physics course, vol. 1 (by C. Kittel, W. D. Knight, and M. A. Ruderman, McGraw-Hill Book company), in its Portuguese edition dated from 1965 by Editora Edgard Blücher, São Paulo, when I was an undergraduate Physics student at UFPE in the 1970’s (please, take a look at the section About Prof. M. E. de Souza) and I reproduce it below. In the Portuguese edition the figure is on page 429.

scan

 

It is also important to pinpoint that the Nobel Prize committee which awarded the Nobel Prize to Robert Hofstadter took into account the fact of his findings on the internal structure of the nucleons when it said that the prize was “for his pioneering studies of electron scattering in atomic nuclei and for his thereby achieved discoveries concerning the structure of the nucleons”.  But I dare to say that Robert Wilson should also have shared the prize.

I end this post saying that my work reconciles the Quark Model with Hofstadter and Wilson results and reveals that valence quarks are, actually, prequarks, and constituent quarks are the true quarks, and also solves many problems of Particle Physics. Please, take a look at other important posts in this web page such as False proof of valence quarks.

It is more than obvious that the internal structure which is common to both nucleons is the nucleon hard core seen by many different experiments and seen more recently by the TOTEM COLLABORATION.

It is also important to pinpoint that my work does not go against QCD, only shows that QCD is a sort of mean field theory that simplifies matters because, as it is easily grasped from these posts, primons are very complicated to be described.  The Dirac equations  for the two primons of each quark should be coupled equations and there are other complications.  Therefore, QCD IS A GREAT THEORY AND WILL GO ON AS SUCH.

WHERE TO LOOK FOR THE OTHER HIGGS-LIKE BOSONS?

Figura

 

(Chart from the paper The Higgs boson and quark compositeness published in Moriond 2014 proceedings)

 

Taking into consideration the above chart for quark transitions in terms of Higgs-like bosons due to selection rules dictated by the quantum number ∑3 , the neutral Higgs-like bosons H0 (+1) and H0 (-1) can be found, for example, in the excesses, above SM values, of the decays t>u H0 (+1) and b>u H0 (-1) , which in terms of the quantum number ∑3 mean, respectively, +1 = 0 + (+1) and -1 = 0 + (-1). As for the charged Higgs-like boson H+ (+2), we should look for excesses in the decays t>b H+ (+2) and t>s H+ (+2), which mean  +1 = -1 + (+2) in terms of ∑3. And with the transition b>c H (-2) we could  also corroborate BaBar results. For more details take a look at other posts in this web page. It is important to have in mind that all Higgs decays seen up to now obey the selection rules  dictated by ∑ . Please, take a look at the post

 All Higgs decays linked to a new quantum number

Number of mass peaks for the Higgs-like bosons

As shown in the papers The Higgs-like Bosons and Quark Compositeness and The Higgs boson and quark compositeness  the Higgs-like bosons quantum numbers are given by the table Boson ∑3 H0 0 ±1 H+, H–  ±1 ±2 As it is clear from the calculation in the paper The Higgs-like Bosons and Quark Compositeness, H0+1 and […]

Ver Mais

Solution to the Proton Spin Puzzle

As shown below the proton spin puzzle is just an important proof of quark compositeness. The proton spin puzzle started with the paper by the European Muon Collaboration (EMC) [Phys. Lett. B Vol. 206(2), 1988] which found for the proton spin the result  (1±12±24)% of the total spin. The solution is, actually, very simple and is […]

Ver Mais

The Higgs Boson and Quark Compositeness

I am recreating this post that was erased somehow, I do not know how. Considering that each quark is composed of two prequarks, called primons, it is shown that the recently found neutral Higgs-like boson belongs to a triplet constituted of a neutral boson and two charged bosons and , and that is, actually, a […]

Ver Mais

Quark Compositeness and the Proton Radius Puzzle

The proton radius puzzle comes about from the discrepancy between measurements for the proton radius using electrons and using muons. The current CODATA data for only electronic spectroscopy data is 0.8758(77) fm . Including electron scattering results, CODATA finds the overall result of 0.8775(51) fm. The first results of muonic hydrogen (Collaboration of Randolf Pohl et al.) […]

Ver Mais

Neutrino Oscillations Hint at a New Fundamental Interaction

In a publication from 2012 the Daya Bay Collaboration reported a  disappearance of about 6% of electron antineutrinos along a distance of 1648 m and claimed that this disapearance was caused by neutrino oscillations. But in a paper that has just been published this collaboration corrects the old result because now it has found that the […]

Ver Mais

The article PLOT OF THE WEEK – QUARK COMPOSITENESS IS NOWHERE NEAR is wrong

The article Plot of the week – quark compositeness is nowhere near posted in Tommaso Dorigo’s blog is wrong. After reading this post, please take a look at the post BIASED NUCLEON STRUCTURE. As I explain in the paper The Higgs Boson and Quark Compositeness (presented at Moriond 2014), and in its presentation, and in the paper Weak decays […]

Ver Mais

The Higgs Parity has not really been determined yet.

At Moriond 2014, on March 23, there was the presentation by Nicola De Filippis on behalf of ATLAS and CMS collaborations: Measurements of the Higgs properties at LHC. Part of the presentation was on the Higgs parity which had been determined to be even. At the end of his talk there was a hot discussion on the […]

Ver Mais

All Higgs decays linked to a new quantum number

         

Ver Mais