Observe that the injector point (the pink arrow) and the two detectors roughly divide the ring into thirds. The protons are sent anticlockwise and the antiprotons clockwise. There is thus one major difference between the CDF and D0 locations: for D0 the protons travel further than the antiprotons do, whereas for CDF it is the other way around. If there was an oscillation involving both the constituent quarks and the antiquarks (they do have a mixing matrix, after all) the characteristic phase for (dark) mirror quarks could oscillate around the ring, with a significant amplitude at one detector but not at the other. The bump dichotomy would then be just one more line of evidence of a difference between what we usually think of as matter and antimatter. Recall that this is not the first surprising difference between CDF and D0 results. Their measurements of a non zero mass difference for the (so called) top and antitop quarks had the same magnitude, but opposite sign, as if at least a component of quark mass really does depend on ring distance. To be or not to be? That is the question!
If this asymmetry is real, then the configuration of the LHC will fail to see this discrepancy between ATLAS and CMS. It will be one of humanity's most humbling experiences of the century.
ReplyDeleteFascinating in addition to being humbling. Perhaps we will someday discover differences between matter and antimatter, much like those between neutrinos and quarks. Scientists still are not sure whether antimatter behaves the same under gravity. LHC might have to go back to the drawing board to find this.
ReplyDeleteA pity we cannot reconfigure the LHC ...
ReplyDeleteThen again, for now I still think the most likely explanation is a problem with the CDF analysis. But with no chance of experimental reproduction, how would we really know?
ReplyDeleteIt sounds almost sensible. Now it "only" remains to explain why this is a good enough reason to forget about the CPT theorem ;-).
ReplyDeleteAhh, Javier, but as I explained in one of links provided, we DON'T give up the CPT theorem. Some things that are called antiparticles have simply been misnamed ...
ReplyDeleteHum, ok, yes, now that you say it I remember to have read some of your posts about "mirror whatever".
ReplyDeleteWell, the Wjj bump discrepancy is a very ugly affair. It is must be accepted as a problem in the methodology of analysing data I think that it opens the way to doubt about many possible other future discovering (or lack of them).
If no other theoretical explanations are found soon I guess that maybe some people in the mainstrean could try to read your articles to see if they can rescue something from them.
Yes, but hell will freeze over first.
ReplyDelete