Proton Neutron

WRONG SEARCH FOR QUARK COMPOSITENESS

The figure below from a DO Collaboration paper has been used as a proof for the non-existence of quark compositeness. But when we read the DO paper we clearly see that it refers to a very high compositeness scale in the TeV range (Take a look at the first three references of the DO paper), but as we see in the posts in this web page  BIASED NUCLEON STRUCTURE and The article PLOT OF THE WEEK – QUARK COMPOSITENESS IS NOWHERE NEAR is wrong the true compositeness scale is just 1 GeV and quark compositeness has not already been established because there is a complete entanglement between primons (prequarks) and valence quarks, and between valence and constituent quarks, besides the fact that primons should be very light. What the quark compositeness searches in the TeV range yield is, actually, that primons (prequarks) are not composite. Therefore, the quark compositeness searches in the TeV range are completely misleading.

It is worth recalling that electrical charges do not appear in Bjorken scaling structure functions. And also we should have in mind that at high q square the de Broglie wavelength h/q is very small and, thus, we probe the 3 inner prequarks in the nucleon and identify them as being 3 valence quarks due to the lack of identification of their electrical charges.

D0 figure

REFERENCES:

The DO paper above mentioned: DO Collaboration, First Measurement of Dijet Angular Distributions in the TeV Regime nd Searches for Quark compositeness and Extra Dimensions, DO Note 5333-CONF.

The first three references of the above paper are:

[1] E. Eichten, I. Hinchliffe, K. D. Lane and C. Quigg, “Super Collider Physics,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 56, 579 (1984) [Addendumibid. 58, 1065 (1986)].

[2] P. Chiappetta and M. Perrottet, “Possible bounds on compositeness from inclusive one jet production in large hadron colliders,” Phys. Lett. B 253, 489 (1991).

[3] K. D. Lane, “Electroweak and flavor dynamics at hadron colliders,” arXiv:hep-ph/9605257.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

This also means that other experiments on quark compositeness carried out in the TeV region produce null results, of course. A good account of this can be found in this ATLAS Report.

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