* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download da una versione vecchia (2004) del libro complexity
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Old quantum theory wikipedia , lookup
Theory of everything wikipedia , lookup
Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly wikipedia , lookup
Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Casimir effect wikipedia , lookup
Large Hadron Collider wikipedia , lookup
Super-Kamiokande wikipedia , lookup
Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization group wikipedia , lookup
Electron scattering wikipedia , lookup
Compact Muon Solenoid wikipedia , lookup
ALICE experiment wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Nuclear force wikipedia , lookup
Atomic nucleus wikipedia , lookup
Nuclear structure wikipedia , lookup
Grand Unified Theory wikipedia , lookup
Standard Model wikipedia , lookup
Future Circular Collider wikipedia , lookup
Strangeness production wikipedia , lookup
DA UNA VERSIONE VECCHIA (2004) DEL LIBRO COMPLEXITY A few examples I have been involved in are reported in Figure. MY CONTRIBUTIONS Strangeness a new quantum number to be additively conserved for the same particles (mesons): not as it was believed to be +1 for mesons (θ0 , θ+ ) and 1 for baryon (⋀0 ). Needed the direct experimental observation of meson production in a pair of neutral mesons (θ0 + θ̅0 ) & of a pair (θ+ + θ̅0 ) . Exactly what was discovered by (A.Z.) when he came in the Blackett group. The discovery was in 1956, published January 1957 [1]. The 3rd lepton, HL (now called ) with its own neutrino, HL (now called ), despite the abundance of neutrinos: e and . Antimatter despite S-matrix and C, P, CP, T breakings. Nucleon Time-like EM structure despite S-matrix No quarks in violent (pp) collisions despite scaling. Meson mixings V PS : (51º) (10º) 0 despite SU(3)uds . Effective energy: the Gribov QCD-light despite QCD-confinement. The EGM effect and the running of 1 2 3 versus energy with the convergence at E1 2 3. The GAP between E1 2 3 and ESU . 1 Point 1. To propose the existence of a third lepton was considered an “unnecessary” complication. A theoretical leader at CERN was saying in fact: why should nature be so complicated to have another neutrino when it can do all that is needed with just one”. When the third lepton, HL, was proposed and the technology was developed to search for its existence, the second neutrino had not been discovered. Point 2. The existence of antimatter was proposed by Dirac in the 1930s when Dirac and Weyl had discovered the symmetry operator C, which describes the invariance of all physical phenomena when all charges are reversed. By 1964, all symmetry operators were discovered to be not valid in the real world, therefore the existence of antiparticles could not guarantee the existence of antimatter since no one knew how to describe the nuclear forces using the mathematics of the Relativistic Quantum Field Theory (RQFT). In fact, the 1960’s were the period of triumph of the so-called S-matrix theory, which was the negation of RQFT. The simplicity of Nature could have been along the line of allowing the antimatter not to exist. In fact, at the Planck scale the RQFT loses its foundations [16] and only an effective theory can “predict” the existence of antimatter. The present status is that the existence of antimatter is on firm experimental grounds even if firm theoretical predictions are missing. Point 3. If S-matrix is enough to explain the simplicity of Nature, why should we complicate the picture with the Time-like electromagnetic structure of a simple particle like the proton? According to the dominant theoretical structure of the 1960’s this structure should not be there. The experimental results have proved its existence, despite S-matrix. The present understanding involves the Instantons (inst). Point 4. According to experimental results in high energy scattering, the proton appeared to be composed of “pieces” (called “partons” by Feynman) whose interactions become very weak at increasing energies. This was the meaning of the experimental effect discovered at SLAC and called “scaling”. Platonic simplicity would suggest that a proton should break into its constituent “partons” if we collide a pair of protons at very high energy. No pieces, be they “partons” or “quarks”, were found at CERN in very precise and extreme high energy collisions of protons. Why this further “complication”? The answer is in the forces (QCD) acting between proton “pieces”: quarks and gluons. These forces (QCD) are non-Abelian, in contrast with the electromagnetic forces described by QED. The non-Abelian nature 2 implies that the strength of a force, acting inside a proton between its “pieces”, increases with distance. When this distance is of the order of one Fermi (10 13 cm), the attraction between quarks and gluons becomes very large and the proton cannot break up. No one had been able to think of non-Abelian forces before we were faced with the experimental complication of explaining why a particle with structure (the proton) cannot break up into its constituents. If the world was simple, all forces should be like QED, Abelian. In this platonic, simple world, we could not exist, because the protons will easily break into pieces. Point 5. Two examples of nuclear “glue” are the vector and the pseudoscalar mesons. Simplicity would require no “mixing” in these mesonic states. If “mixing” needs to be there, simplicity would imply that the two mixing “angles” (the “angle” is a parameter which measures the mixing) be equal. V = PS. The experimental results establish that they are different. Once again these effects are understood as due to Instantons. Point 6. The effective energy – as said, is theoretically not understood – and its discovery was related to what Gribov defined as the “hidden side of QCD”. It is the “Effective Energy” which produces what Gribov called “the QCD light”. Point 7. Shows that during more than ten years (from 1979 to 1991), no one had realized that the energy threshold for the existence of the Superworld was strongly dependent on the “running” of the masses. This is now called: the EGM effect (from the initials of Evolution of Gaugino Masses). To compute the energy threshold using only the “running” of the gauge charges (1, 2, 3) corresponds to neglecting nearly three orders of magnitude in the energy threshold for the discovery of the first particle (the lightest) of the Superworld [11]. 3