Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of QandA


Ignore:
Timestamp:
04/06/12 16:33:02 (7 years ago)
Author:
trac
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • QandA

    v1 v2  
    1313
    1414
    15 where %$\tilde G$% is the dual field tensor. This term violates parity %$P$% and time reversal %$T$%, but since both are not symmetries
     15where $\tilde G$ is the dual field tensor. This term violates parity $P$ and time reversal $T$, but since both are not symmetries
    1616of the Standard Model (violated by weak interactions) it should be included. The problem is that one would then expect, from naturalness argument
    17 to have %$\theta$% of order one. Experimental bounds coming mainly from the limits on the neutron electric dipole moment gives
    18 %$||\theta||<10^{-10}$%. This gives the so-called "strong CP problem". The Peccei-Quinn mechanism ([http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v38/i25/p1440_1 Phys.Rev.Lett. 38 (1977), 1440]) is a famous attempt to solve this problem by introducing a dynamical field, which gives rise to the axion. See the PDG section on [http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/reviews/axion_s029.pdf axion searches] for  an up-to-date report on axion searches.
     17to have $\theta$ of order one. Experimental bounds coming mainly from the limits on the neutron electric dipole moment gives
     18%$||\theta||<10^{-10}$. This gives the so-called "strong CP problem". The Peccei-Quinn mechanism ([http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v38/i25/p1440_1 Phys.Rev.Lett. 38 (1977), 1440]) is a famous attempt to solve this problem by introducing a dynamical field, which gives rise to the axion. See the PDG section on [http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/reviews/axion_s029.pdf axion searches] for  an up-to-date report on axion searches.
    1919
    2020====== The parton distribution functions are non-perturbative quantities. Is there any solid lattice result?  ======
     
    2323In practice I am not aware of any result competitive with the most common global fits from CTEQ, MRST, NNPDF,...
    2424
    25 ====== In a MC approach we always start from the high %$Q^2$% interaction and then apply forward (time-like) evolution to connect it with the final state and backward (space-like) evolution to connect it with the initial state. Why don't we start from the initial state and go all the way to the final one? ======
     25====== In a MC approach we always start from the high $Q^2$ interaction and then apply forward (time-like) evolution to connect it with the final state and backward (space-like) evolution to connect it with the initial state. Why don't we start from the initial state and go all the way to the final one? ======
    2626
    2727The main reason is just efficiency. Consider for example Higgs production from gg or Drell-Yan. If I start a forward shower from the incoming
    28 protons I will only very very rarely hit the right %$Q^2$% (of order of the boson masses) in correspondence with the right x's (%$x_1 x_2 S=M^2$%).
     28protons I will only very very rarely hit the right $Q^2$ (of order of the boson masses) in correspondence with the right x's ($x_1 x_2 S=M^2$).
    2929
    3030=== Lecture 2 ===
     
    3333
    3434There are several : the properties (energy and angular distributions) of the muon decay
    35 %$\mu^- \to e^- \bar \nu_e \nu_\mu$%, Beta decay, and pion decays %$\pi^- \to l^- \bar \nu_l$%.
     35%$\mu^- \to e^- \bar \nu_e \nu_\mu$, Beta decay, and pion decays $\pi^- \to l^- \bar \nu_l$.
    3636A concise list and discussion can be found, for instance, in the older version of the lectures on the SM by A. Pich ([http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?eprint=hep-ph/9412274 hep-ph/9412274]).
    3737
     
    5454If you do so, then you can consider neutrino masses as our first solid indication of physics beyond the Standard Model. This is nice for many reasons. My preferred one is as follows.
    5555Considering the Standard Model as an effective field theory, one can start including the effects of new physics as described by higher dimensional operators. The largest effects should be coming from the lower dimensional operators. Now it turns out that you can write dozens
    56 of operators of dimension 6 and beyond. However, there is only one operator of dimension 5, of the type (schematically) %$( L \phi) (\phi L)/M$%,  that
     56of operators of dimension 6 and beyond. However, there is only one operator of dimension 5, of the type (schematically) $( L \phi) (\phi L)/M$,  that
    5757describes Majorana neutrino masses. Isn't that great?
    5858
     
    7979
    8080
     81