Re: Question About Charged Particles.

[Robert B Zannelli <Spinoza321@AOL.COM>]

In a message dated 4/8/01 4:23:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV
writes:



         I have exhibited such a theory (see the Schwinger reference -and
 set the rest mass to zero).

Yes, I got your point here Jack.


         <<Yes, Gordon is a high priest of supersymmetry.  But no one that I
 know of has proposed that supersymmetry is the road to understanding
 particle masses.  Quite the opposite.  It is the string theorists who
 believe that they are on the road to a "theory of everything".>>


  He writes in Supersymmetry  "one of the exciting achievements of the
Supersymmetry standard model embedded in broader theories is that it provides
an explanation of how the Higgs  physics works, and the Supersymmetric
standard model embedded in broader theories that are candidates for the
primary theory can both fully explain both the Higgs physics and how it
works"

That part about broader theories may well be Superstring, so I concede your
point. I am only just beginning to look into Kane's work. First I read the
his popular books then I hunt out his papers available on e print. I need
more time with him on this.



         Consistent with what?  The Higgs mechanism was fine in the context
 in which it was invented.  When applied to Quantum field theory the rules
 became a bit vague.  QCD is the extant preferred theory of matter, and
 we don't really know how to calculate with it.>>

Consistent with the Yang's Mills theory for one. Beyond the SM Superstring
theory also postulates all particles having zero rest mass as the zero
multiple of string states which all particles we can possible know are. The
next multiple have the Planck energy as their minimum energy.

> we deal with this question in the standard model?  Jack points out that in a
> later post that we don't even know what electric charge is.



         You've got the wrong guy.  Didn't happen on my watch.>>

You are quite correct. I apologize for the error.


>            Finally we do have zero rest mass particles which carry color
> charge (they are confined by this force) and we did not question a massless
> neutrino with weak charge. Now we strongly suspect that neutrinos are not
> massless. So perhaps we can redefine the question, must all zero mass
charged
> particles be confined, as Jack suspects?

         I don't like the term "must".  It smacks of the belief that there
 are some eternal verities that govern our thinking.  That, in fact, is
 what troubles me about this whole discussion.  I regard us as model
 builders, and the restrictions imposed on any given model depend upon
 the assumptions made in building that model.  Thus, I can understand the
 question, "Can I make a model in which charged particles are massless?".
 I might not be able to answer it, but I at least understand what it is
 that I am supposed to do.
         A very different question is, "Can a charged particle be
 massless?".  That is a question about all possible universes, so I suppose
 that I would have to answer, "Yes, if the gods so will it.">>

Jack I thing I understand your point here. However perhaps it is still a
philosophic difference we are talking about. For me physics is a description
of an objectively real Universe. Therefore when I think model, I am talking
about something which directly accords with reality and not just a convenient
tool for calculation of observed phenomena. I believe your view is positivist
and probably a majority view held by most physicist. I wasn't asking if such
an entity was supported by our models but rather if such a thing could really
be. However to talk intelligently about these things we must still speak the
same language of scientific models so the practical results of our different
views is nil.

Bob Zannelli