alejandro.rivero
2004-05-22 17:22:23 UTC
I am calling now "lamb balance" to the conjecture of recoil-lamb
corrections to the energy levels between two particles of different
mass M, m, when the small particle m has an additional coupling to a
boson field of mass M' near to M. The link between M and m can be
any coulombian or Yukawian field, in principle.
One expects that when increasing M to be greater than M' the
correction increases sharply and the corresponding loss of stability
in the more external levels is noticeable.
This way should let you to "weight" the mass of M'.
The Lamb Balance is a conjecture because of two reasons:
-People has not seen the utility of calculating Lamb+Recoil effects in
this specific case of a massive field coupled only to one of the
particles.
-There are not, as far as I know, quantum experiments able to control
the weight of the recoiling particle M.
Lately I speculated that neutron skins (kind of populated halos) could
be the appropriate experiment. There, the more external nucleons are
far off from the rest of the nucleus, and the momenta exchanged is
small. So in this very peculiar case the rest of the nucleus can be
considered roughly as a single recoiling particle of mass M_A.
These skins happen near the neutron dripline. So it is reasonable
postulate that if the Lamb Balance works, we will notice a change in
levels each time that the drip line crosses the value of a massive
boson field. In a symmetrical way, and allthough the Coulomb barrier
minimises the possibility of proton skins, it was also sensible to
consider if the proton drip line presents the same effect.
(Here, one should stop a moment to consider that meson-exchange models
of force are not able yet to reproduce accurately the effects needed
to calculate nuclear masses. Until ten years ago computational effort
could be blamed, but today there are empirical models of force (Skirme
etc) that are able to reproduce fairly the spectra of nuclear masses,
so calculation is no more an excuse. Besides, these empirical models
give us fairly confidence on the location of the drip lines)
The first results of this research have been summarised in figures 1
and 8 of hep-ph/0405076 v2. Figure 8 is more complete, and some small
progress could have occurred since I drawn it. Let me to go from the
firm points to the more speculative ones:
In the neutron dripline, the jump N=126 happens at a mass of about
175 Gev.
In the proton dripline, the jump P=50 happens at the mass of Z0 boson,
and the jump P=82 happens at a mass of about 175 GeV.
In the neutron dripline, the jump N=82 happens at a mass of about 115
GeV, and the jump N=184 happens at the mass of 246 GeV.
In the proton dripline, the jump P=114 happens at the mass of 246 GeV.
First stop to identify these values. 175 GeV is singularised in the
standard model as the mass of the Top quark. The very short lived
mesons composed from it should also have masses in this range. Another
possibility is a beyond standard model boson degenerated in mass with
the mass of top.
246 GeV is the vacuum expected value of the higgs *field* in the
current electroweak model. No particle is expected there -except if
the higgs coupling is unity- in the standard model, but anyway it is a
known mass scale coming from the electroweak model.
115 GeV is the mass scale at which an anomalous excess was detected in
ALEPH, at CERN, some years ago, and expected to be a neutral boson.
If you have followed me until here, you can have a couple of
criticisms:
Does the W particle has a role to play here?
What happens with the Higgs at the proton dripline and, for the same
token, with the Z0 at the neutron dripline?
The second question seems to be answered by recalling the existence of
semi-magic numbers. At the proton side of the Higgs, already
Klinkenberg noticed a very strong competition between g7/2 and d5/2.
At the neutron side of the Z, a semimagic n=64 could be researched.
The small role of the Higgs could be simply a indication of a mass of
the up quark lower than the one of the down, so the Higgs coupling to
protons is weaker than to neutrons after all.
As for the W, it is a peculiar particle because it is the responsible
of beta decay, thus it is unclear if the Lamb Balance, as naively
built, applies to it.
One could also speculate if the W peculiarity lets it to contribute
for magicities a bit below its natural scale, namely the ones of Z=40
(semimagic but very noticeable) and N=50. But for this scales the CERN
has also a 2.5 sigma candidate in the closet, namely the 69 GeV excess
of hep-ex/0105057, hep-ex/0309056, which has been discarded mainly
because it does not decay to leptons as well as SUSY wants, and
because it disagrees with current MSSM fashions.
To conclude:
-At different speculation levels, the nuclear lamb balance is able to
fit all the magic numbers beyond 28 in neutron and proton drip lines.
-At his highest speculative level, the balance favours a two-doublet,
not MSSM, model of symmetry breaking, where the mass of the charged
higgs is smaller than mass of Z0, the mass of the top is degenerated
with one of the extant bosons, and another one remains at exactly the
value of the vacuum of the current minimal higgs mechanism.
-at progressive speculation levels, the nuclear lamb balance favours
both the 115 GeV excess and the 69 GeV excess measured by LEP.
Alejandro.
corrections to the energy levels between two particles of different
mass M, m, when the small particle m has an additional coupling to a
boson field of mass M' near to M. The link between M and m can be
any coulombian or Yukawian field, in principle.
One expects that when increasing M to be greater than M' the
correction increases sharply and the corresponding loss of stability
in the more external levels is noticeable.
This way should let you to "weight" the mass of M'.
The Lamb Balance is a conjecture because of two reasons:
-People has not seen the utility of calculating Lamb+Recoil effects in
this specific case of a massive field coupled only to one of the
particles.
-There are not, as far as I know, quantum experiments able to control
the weight of the recoiling particle M.
Lately I speculated that neutron skins (kind of populated halos) could
be the appropriate experiment. There, the more external nucleons are
far off from the rest of the nucleus, and the momenta exchanged is
small. So in this very peculiar case the rest of the nucleus can be
considered roughly as a single recoiling particle of mass M_A.
These skins happen near the neutron dripline. So it is reasonable
postulate that if the Lamb Balance works, we will notice a change in
levels each time that the drip line crosses the value of a massive
boson field. In a symmetrical way, and allthough the Coulomb barrier
minimises the possibility of proton skins, it was also sensible to
consider if the proton drip line presents the same effect.
(Here, one should stop a moment to consider that meson-exchange models
of force are not able yet to reproduce accurately the effects needed
to calculate nuclear masses. Until ten years ago computational effort
could be blamed, but today there are empirical models of force (Skirme
etc) that are able to reproduce fairly the spectra of nuclear masses,
so calculation is no more an excuse. Besides, these empirical models
give us fairly confidence on the location of the drip lines)
The first results of this research have been summarised in figures 1
and 8 of hep-ph/0405076 v2. Figure 8 is more complete, and some small
progress could have occurred since I drawn it. Let me to go from the
firm points to the more speculative ones:
In the neutron dripline, the jump N=126 happens at a mass of about
175 Gev.
In the proton dripline, the jump P=50 happens at the mass of Z0 boson,
and the jump P=82 happens at a mass of about 175 GeV.
In the neutron dripline, the jump N=82 happens at a mass of about 115
GeV, and the jump N=184 happens at the mass of 246 GeV.
In the proton dripline, the jump P=114 happens at the mass of 246 GeV.
First stop to identify these values. 175 GeV is singularised in the
standard model as the mass of the Top quark. The very short lived
mesons composed from it should also have masses in this range. Another
possibility is a beyond standard model boson degenerated in mass with
the mass of top.
246 GeV is the vacuum expected value of the higgs *field* in the
current electroweak model. No particle is expected there -except if
the higgs coupling is unity- in the standard model, but anyway it is a
known mass scale coming from the electroweak model.
115 GeV is the mass scale at which an anomalous excess was detected in
ALEPH, at CERN, some years ago, and expected to be a neutral boson.
If you have followed me until here, you can have a couple of
criticisms:
Does the W particle has a role to play here?
What happens with the Higgs at the proton dripline and, for the same
token, with the Z0 at the neutron dripline?
The second question seems to be answered by recalling the existence of
semi-magic numbers. At the proton side of the Higgs, already
Klinkenberg noticed a very strong competition between g7/2 and d5/2.
At the neutron side of the Z, a semimagic n=64 could be researched.
The small role of the Higgs could be simply a indication of a mass of
the up quark lower than the one of the down, so the Higgs coupling to
protons is weaker than to neutrons after all.
As for the W, it is a peculiar particle because it is the responsible
of beta decay, thus it is unclear if the Lamb Balance, as naively
built, applies to it.
One could also speculate if the W peculiarity lets it to contribute
for magicities a bit below its natural scale, namely the ones of Z=40
(semimagic but very noticeable) and N=50. But for this scales the CERN
has also a 2.5 sigma candidate in the closet, namely the 69 GeV excess
of hep-ex/0105057, hep-ex/0309056, which has been discarded mainly
because it does not decay to leptons as well as SUSY wants, and
because it disagrees with current MSSM fashions.
To conclude:
-At different speculation levels, the nuclear lamb balance is able to
fit all the magic numbers beyond 28 in neutron and proton drip lines.
-At his highest speculative level, the balance favours a two-doublet,
not MSSM, model of symmetry breaking, where the mass of the charged
higgs is smaller than mass of Z0, the mass of the top is degenerated
with one of the extant bosons, and another one remains at exactly the
value of the vacuum of the current minimal higgs mechanism.
-at progressive speculation levels, the nuclear lamb balance favours
both the 115 GeV excess and the 69 GeV excess measured by LEP.
Alejandro.
