<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE id=owaParaStyle type=text/css>P {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
P {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" bgColor=#ffffff ocsi="0" fpstyle="1">
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Hi John,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Many thanks indeed for this very
thorough round-up of the 'evidence' on quarks.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Very much appreciated.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Wishing all colleagues a great
Christmas and an excellent New Year.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John Williamson</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=sleary@vavi.co.uk
href="mailto:sleary@vavi.co.uk">Stephen Leary</A> ; <A
title=darren@makemeafilm.com href="mailto:darren@makemeafilm.com">Darren
Eggenschwiler</A> ; <A title=nick@bailey-family.org.uk
href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk">Nick Bailey</A> ; <A
title=abooth@ieee.org href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org">Anthony Booth</A> ; <A
title=piet.delaney.2@gmail.com href="mailto:piet.delaney.2@gmail.com">Pete
Delaney</A> ; <A title=innes.morrison@cocoon.life
href="mailto:innes.morrison@cocoon.life">Innes Morrison</A> ; <A
title=afriat@gmail.com href="mailto:afriat@gmail.com">Alexander Afriat</A> ;
<A title=phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz
href="mailto:phil.butler@canterbury.ac.nz">Phil Butler</A> ; <A
title=mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk href="mailto:mpbw1879@yahoo.co.uk">Michael
Wright</A> ; <A title=ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr
href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr">Ariane Mandray</A> ; <A
title=slf@unsw.edu.au href="mailto:slf@unsw.edu.au">Solomon Freer</A> ; <A
title=manohar_berlin@hotmail.com
href="mailto:manohar_berlin@hotmail.com">Manohar .</A> ; <A
title=biriukovavera@gmail.com href="mailto:biriukovavera@gmail.com">Vera
Biryukova</A> ; <A title=Mike.Mobley@gcu.edu
href="mailto:Mike.Mobley@gcu.edu">Mike Mobley</A> ; <A
title=Niels.Gresnigt@xjtlu.edu.cn
href="mailto:Niels.Gresnigt@xjtlu.edu.cn">Niels Gresnigt</A> ; <A
title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">Mark,Martin van der</A> ; <A
title=ahasty@gmail.com href="mailto:ahasty@gmail.com">AmancioHasty</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, December 11, 2016 4:13
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] nature of light
particles & theories</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; DIRECTION: ltr; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<STYLE>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS ??";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
..MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</STYLE>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Hi everyone,</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Have been meaning to explain a bit more
about the proton internal structure for some time in answer to an earlier
question from John D about the evidence for quarks inside the proton. I did
reference the literature, but this is hard to understand if you are not in the
field and the field anyway tries to hide the pure truth with a lot of dense
and well-established undergrowth.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>I had not got round to this earlier due to two things: pressure of
other work and the fact that I forgot to note the source for a useful chapter
I found on the internet. Just tracked it down and it is at:</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><CITE><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin"
lang=EN-US><A
href="https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys741/xji/chapter4.pdf"><SPAN
style="FONT-STYLE: normal">https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys741/xji/chapter4.pdf</SPAN></A></SPAN></CITE></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><CITE><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin"
lang=EN-US></SPAN></CITE> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Did not want to send you my copy of it
without crediting the source.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Anyway,the main thing I wanted to do was
cut the through some of the jargon and help explain what the proton structure
functions (in fig 4.6 in the above) mean. This is the essence of what is known
experimentally about the internal structure of the proton – and contains the
main evidence for the quark-parton model. The quark-parton model is the
association of hard bits in the proton, the partons, with the pattern of
existing particles explained by Gell-Mann’s quark model. This also helps to
explain some things about Richard’s question in the recent email – hence the
choice to spend time on this in the early hours of this morning.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Now I’m not going to explain this in
detail – the chapter referenced above does a better job of this – but I want
to cut the experiment a bit free from the embedded story of the QCD
quark-gluon etc etc model (and it is just a model remember) and explain what
the EXPERIMENT tells you.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>The experiment gives the structure
functions in terms of two variables Qsquared and x. Briefly, Qsquared is the
measured 4-momentum transfer squared of the interaction in GeV squared. How
hard you hit it (squared). To give you an idea of the scale of the hit –
100GeV squared is roughly ten times the mass-energy of the proton itself. And
so the data extends out to about a 100 protons worth of “hit”. That is
hard!</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Now x is a more interesting variable. It
is the measured fraction of the proton’s 4-momentum carried by whatever you
hit. Thinking of the proton in its rest-frame – this is just its rest mass. So
x tells you how much of the proton mass was carried by whatever you hit. x is
1 and you got the whole proton. This is what you would always measure if you
hit a simple object like the electron. The electron is a single object and it
carries all of its mass localized to the electron. This is how you know. The
proton is not like that. At the quark-parton models simplest, with no forces
and no confinement one thinks of it as three quarks. If each of these carried
a third of the proton mass one would have data at only x = 0.33. Note that
there is not even any structure there.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>What one actually sees is completely
different to this, or to any three-hard-bits-in-a-bag model. In the vast
majority of collisions the effective “mass” of whatever you hit was very very
low. Look at the scale for F2. It goes over 12 orders of magnitude. One is
hundreds of millions times more likely to hit a “quark-parton” with a
practically zero x of 0.000063 than one with a (simple model) x of 0.3 ish.
Now precisely zero x would be hitting a rest-massless (photon-like) object,
one third x would be simple rest-massive quarks in a massless bag with binding
energy (gluons if you like) of the same order as the mass. A sixth x would be
3 equal mass quarks with some confinement at the same kind of energy as the
quark mass-energy. You get nothing like this. What you get is gloop. There is
almost no discernable structure at all.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>So why do people think there are hard bits
in the proton. The evidence for this comes from scaling – a flat distribution
with Q squared then. This IS evidenced by the curves in the middle of the
figure. At x = 0.08 it is pretty flat. Think about it. If the proton contained
hard billiard-ball like bits, how likely you were to hit them with another
flung billiard ball does not depend on how hard you fling it, but on the
“impact parameter”. This is what is characteristic of single-hard-object
scattering.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Note that this simple scaling does not
apply at low x, where the data shows that it becomes rapidly more likely to
find a photon-like object as one hits it harder, and at high x where it
becomes rapidly less likely to hit a high-mass constituent. Explain that in a
model of a bag of bits. You should resolve the hard bits better, instead it
seems they break. Not very hard then. Ok, you are walloping them with a
4-momentum squared many times their mass squared, but one is doing this at
lower x as well. The other thing is that, if you integrate over all the bits
you hit in deep inelastic proton scattering, you only get about half the
proton mass. The rest is something else, something unhittable with charges and
photons. This is the meaning of equation 4.77. This is interpreted as arising
from the binding. Could well be, but whatever they are binding is mostly,
experimentally, a whole pile of really low mass bits (if bits indeed) – more
and more of it as one looks harder and harder. Remember, to make up the proton
mass there must be (at least) hundreds of millions of them. Hundreds of
millions is not 3. One talks about “valence quarks and sea quarks, but this is
mostly bullshit. One sees what one sees, not what one would like to see. Also
the number in eq. 4.77 is so near 50 percent I favour something much more
radical and far simpler. That will eventually become another paper. Quarks,
why there are three and what they really are is what comes next.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>If you want to see how bad it gets for the
standard model (and why I left particle physics) the bullshit about the
standard model picture gets (much!) worse in the next section about the
“proton spin crisis” so read on if you dare …</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>I’m not quite up to speed with who is or
is not on the general maiing list, so some of you may get this twice –
apologies!</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Thats it for now.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=EN-US>Cheers, John.</SPAN></P>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 16px">
<HR tabIndex=-1>
</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>