Abstract
The problems posed and the challenges offered by QFD, at this time, are analyzed and discussed. A convenient starting point is afforded by a comparison of the different circumstances of QFD and QCD. Some features of the conventional methodology of QFD, which may be deemed to be questionable, are underlined. The prospects of the standard model are examined in the light of recent experiments, and some theoretical deficiencies of the model are noted. Following a brief comment about the status of some recently proposed models, it is suggested that one search for new physical principles which may be governing the structure of weak interactions in a hitherto unperceived way. Manifest left-right symmetry and time-reversal invariance, realized as symmetries of the Nambu-Goldstone type, are mentioned as possible examples of such principles; additional motivation for these symmetries emerges in a discussion of recent work on the problem of natural suppression of strong T-violation. The report concludes with a brief appraisal of the present state of QFD.
Work supported in part by the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration under grant number EY-76-C-02-2232B.*000
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
For reviews of QFD, written before the discipline was so christened by M. Gell-Mann, see: E.S. Abers and B.W. Lee, Phys. Rep. C9, 1(l973); M.A.B. Bég and A. Sirlin, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 24, 379 (1974).
For a review of QCD, see: W.J. Marciano and H.R. Pagels, Phys. Rep. C (to be published).
For example, F. Gursey and P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 775 (1976).
F. Gürsey and L.A. Radicati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 173 (l964).
M.A.B. Bég, B.W. Lee and A. Pais, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 643 (1964); M.A.B. Bég and V. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 418 (1964).
O. W. Greenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 598 (1964).
Symmetry breaking with the conventional Higgs mechanism jeopardizes the status of SU(3)c- as a classification symmetry, as well as the asymptotic freedom property of the theory [Ref. 8, below].
H.D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1346 (1973); D.J. Gross and F. Wilczek, ibid. 1343 (1973)
V. N. Gribov, Lecture at the 12th Winter School of the Leningrad Nuclear Physics Institute (1977)
A. Sirlin, Rev. Mod. Phys. (to be published).
M.A.B. Bég and A. Sirlin, Ref. 1.
P.W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 112, 1900 (1958)
M.L. Perl et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1489 (1975), and Phys. Lett. 63B, 466 (1976).
S.W. Herb et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 252 (1977).
T.D. Lee, Phys. Rep. C9, 148 (1974); P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. 65B, 141 (1976); S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 657 (1976).
P. Wanderer et al., Phys. Rev. D (to be published) and references cited therein.
M. Holder et al., Phys. Lett. 72B, 254 (1977) and references cited therein.
For a recent review of the theoretical and the experimental situation, see W.J. Marciano’s report to “Orbis Scientiae 1978”; for an extensive list of references, see: B. Humpert, “μ → eγ; Why so interesting?”, SLAG Preprint (l977).
A. Benvenuti et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1110, 1185 (l977).
K. Kleinknecht, Report to “Orbis Scientiae 1978”; J. Steinberger, Report to the Irvine Conference (1977).
For information about the new super events seen by the HPWF group, I am indebted to V. Barger (Private communication).
K. Kleinknecht, Private Communication.
M. Holder et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 433 (1977).
See, for example, R.M. Barnett, H. Georgi and H.D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 1313 (1976).
M.A. Bouchiat and G.G. Bouchiat, Phys. Lett. 48B, 111 (l974); Le Journal de Physique 35, 899 (1974) and 36, 493 (1975); G. Feinberg and M.Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D1O, 3789 (1974); M.A.B. Bég and G. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 606 (1974); 35, 130 (E) (1975).
L.L. Lewis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 795 (1977); P. Baird et al., ibid. 39, 798 (1977).
C.E. Loving and P. Sandars, Oxford University Preprint (1977).
G. Feinberg, “Parity Nonconservation in Atoms”, Columbia University preprint (1977); S. Meshkov amp; S.P.Rosen, unpublished.
R.R. Lewis and W.L. Williams, Phys. Lett. 59B, 70 (1975); R. Cahn and G. Kane, ibid. 71B, 348 (1977).
M.A.B. Bég and G. Feinberg, Ref. 25.
L.D. Faddeev, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 210, 807 (1973) [English translation: Sov. Phys.-Doklady 18, 382 (1973)].
J.D. Bjorken, SLAG Preprint (1977).
The reader is referred to recent volumes of the standard journals, particularly “Physics Letters” and “Physical Review Letters”, for a reasonably complete bibliography.
M.A.B. Bég, R. Budny, R. Mohapatra and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1252 (1977).
M.A.B. Bég, R. Mohapatra, A. Sirlin and H.-S. Tsao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1054 (1977).
M.A.B. Bég and S.-S. Shei, Phys. Rev. D12, 3092 (l975).
Earlier formulations of left-right symmetry, and suggestions to the effect that parity may be good at high energies, may be found in the following papers (listed in chronological order): E.M. Lipmanov, Yad. Fiz. 6, 541 (1967) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 6, 395 (1968)]; M.A.B. Bég and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 675 (1973) and Phys. Rev. D8, 1460 (1973); P. Fayet, Nucl. Phys. B78, 14 (l974); J. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D10, 275 (l974); H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Nucl. Phys. B103, 6l (1976); R.N. Mohapatra and D. P. Sidhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 667 (1977); A. de Rujula, H. Georgi and S.L. Glashow, Harvard Preprint (1977).
The first “vector-like” model was constructed by M.A.B. Bég and A. Zee, Ref. 37; for other references, see the report of H. Georgi in the Proceedings of “Orbis Scientiae, 1977”.
R.N. Mohapatra and D.P. Sidhu, Ref. 37.
R.N. Mohapatra, F.E.Paige and D.P. Sidhu, BNL Preprint (1977). Parity violation effects arising at the one-loop level have been calculated by W.J. Marciano and A.I. Sanda, Rockefeller University Report No. C00-2232B-142. (to be published in Phys. Rev. D)
The first discussion, in the gauge theoretic contest, is that of T.D. Lee Ref. 15.
R. Peccei and H. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (l977); Phys. Rev. D16, 1791 (1977). H. Quinn, Report to “Orbis Scientiae 1978”.
If one chooses θ so as to reproduce the correct order of magnitude for KL → 2π, one obtains a value for the electric dipole moment of the neutron which is about six orders of magnitude larger than the experimental upper limit. [See, for example, K. Kleinknecht, Ann. Rev. of Nuc. Sci. 26, 1 (1976) and references cited therein]
This course is favored by M. Gell-Mann (Private communication)
Arguments against mu = 0 [see, for example, S. Weinberg,Ref. 46], based on the application of chiral perturbation theory to the K0−K+ mass difference, are not very convincing.
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 223 (1978); F. Wilczek, ibid. 40, 279 (1977).
C. Baltay, G. Feinberg and M. Goldhaber (Unpublished);G. Feinberg (Private communication).
And corresponding to the same eigenvalues for the Casimir operators of the group. (This qualification is, of course, redundant for representations of low dimensionality).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1978 Plenum Press, New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bég, M.A.B. (1978). Quantum Flavordynamics: A Status Report. In: Perlmutter, A., Scott, L.F. (eds) New Frontiers in High-Energy Physics. Studies in the Natural Sciences, vol 14. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2865-0_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2865-0_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-2867-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-2865-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive