Re: Lorentz violation of the Standard Model

Dear Igor Khavkine,

Thanks for your argument point by point.
But, I am afraid that I still can't see what you can see.
Please forgive my additional questions and comments with your
generous understanding.

"Igor Khavkine" <igor.kh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140394118.954574.68120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So to the order O(m/E,m/p), the electrons chirality
becomes a good quantum number which can be related to its helicity.


However, the chirality of electron is only approximately a good quantum
number, though I am not sure we can still call it "a good quantum number."

However, for this argument to hold,
the value A_PV must in principle be a Lorentz scalar (which would not
change under a boost). But what on Earth would make you think that?

The reason I think that A_PV is a Lorentz scalar is because it consists
of the total cross section of an incident electron; the cross section
measured in SLAC E158 is from the total number of scattering of an
incident electron with one polarization and it corresponds to the
theoretical
calculation of the total cross section of an electron with one chirality.
Are you saying that the total cross section is not a Lorentz scalar and thus
the lifetime of particle would be frame-dependent?

If A_PV and thus parity violation is indeed frame-dependent, A_PV can be
zero
and no parity violation in some frames where sigma_L in the lab frame
is observed as the same as sigma_R. The outcome of the experiment,
the conclusion of parity violation is in disagreement.

Also, in my opinion when they say a symmetry is broken, it is stated
in the sense that the symmetry violation is frame-independent

This makes A_PV itself frame dependent. Its value
reported in the paper (A_PV ~ -10^9) is its value *in the lab frame*.
[..]
However, there is no disagreement about
the outcome of the experiment, since


Thanks,
J.C. Yoon


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Radius of electron
    ... > You will get all the leads you need in the following reference: ... > will find that Bourilkov's upper limit for the electron radius is now ... I never heard of "Coulomb total cross section". ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Radius of electron
    ... > You will get all the leads you need in the following reference: ... > will find that Bourilkov's upper limit for the electron radius is now ... I never heard of "Coulomb total cross section". ...
    (sci.physics)