"The large statistics and the small energy steps of this scan
make it possible
to observe clear structures
corresponding to the opening of new thresholds ..."
Nevertheless, in data analysis one uses very old expressions
which work well for the light flavors,
but certainly NOT for the more massive quarks.
Consequently, all experimentally observed "bumps"
are baptised "new particles".
We have "discovered" threshold enhancements
in a work on production amplitudes,
reasonably well summarised in the Appendix at page 12.
A more compact notation of the formalism can be found
here:
P = Im(Z) + TZ = threshold enhancement + resonances.
Although I do not claim to have solved the issue, we have given it a try
in an article in which we show that bumps
like the X(4660) and the Υ(10580)
are non-resonant threshold enhancements.
The real resonances can also be found.
The ψ(5S,4D) are pinpointed
in an article (page 11, Fig. 6)
in which we study Belle data.
But the response of Belle is that WE,
meaning, of course, instead,
the Belle Collaboration,
have not enough statistics.
Nothing is done to clarify that!
The Υ(4S) we find at 10.735 GeV, not at 10.580 GeV
(see also).
No further attempt of experimentalists to clarify that situation.
Just a smaller binning for the available data
would probably resolve those issues!
In the above referred talk I have paid a lot of attention
to additional fine structure one may find in the mesonic system
(in the 20 available minutes and for a large audience of experimentalists).
Not giving priority to those subjects means that one can ad infinitum continue
with all kind of non-sense models, some of them referred to as mainstream.
Our first observation of a possible low-mass quantum,
was achieved by our analysis of the meson spectra:
in 1980
and 1983.
In those works we observed that 3P0
light-quark-pair creation was associated
with a quantum of about 30 MeV.
However, my collaborators preferred to express that quantum
in terms of a radius.
This radius, a parameter which has to be adjusted to the meson data,
is sensitive to hadronic decay widths.
At present, with better data, it corresponds to a mass value of 35 - 40 MeV,
independent of the flavors of the mesonic system.
Hence, it is the same for
uu
as for
cs
and
bb
...
A few years ago, I discovered an
interference effect.
Later on, I observed a
few more signals,
which may be explained by the existence of a 38 MeV boson.
However, at this point it was not clear whether it might exist outside
a hadron.
But, then I discovered
small effects in
bb
decay and some
more.
Those effects could be interpreted as
bb
decay in a
light boson.
Those effects also predict the existence of a
hybrid
bb
state.
So, it seemed that the E(38) could exist on its own.
The only decay mode which has a reasonable intensity, which I could imagine
for the E(38) is its diphoton decay.
I found a small signal in
CB-ELSA data,
a slightly larger signal in
COMPASS data,
and a very convincing signal in different
COMPASS data.
However, that signal was contested by the COMPASS Collaboration.
Nevertheless, the Monte-Carlo simulation of the artefact hypothesis
of the COMPASS Collaboration
only explains a very small part (blue) of the measured signal (red).
There is a possibility that it can be measured at LHC by CMS.
The diphoton data exist, but it is rather difficult
to perform the analysis.
In the above figure, we compare the COMPASS signal
with the CMS diphoton signal.
As one may observe from the COMPASS data,
the E(38) (second from the left) enhancement
is about 50 times smaller
than the neutral-pion (largest peak) signal.
The reason that the E(38) peak is visible stems from the very high
resolution of COMPASS.
COMPASS employs 0.5 MeV bins,
whereas, CMS uses 5 MeV bins.
Furthermore, the background of COMPASS is small (about 10% of the
π0 signal),
whereas, CMS has a large background (about 50% of the
π0 signal).
Hence, in order to observe anything of the E(38),
CMS has to improve on bin size, in order to be capable
of distinguishing E(38) from background.
Nevertheless, from the figure below,
we could conclude that CMS already got an E(38) signal.
However, the structure at low energies may also very well be explained
by the phenomenon of the accumulation of diphoton pairs at low energies,
which in principle grows to very large values
when one approaches zero diphoton mass from above.
By applying cuts, that part of the diphoton spectrum is removed.
What is left is just the onset of that phenomenon.
CMS applies higher cuts.
Hence the lower peak
comes at 35 MeV.
In the lefthand side figure,
I show schematically how I suppose
that the ideal diphoton-mass distribution would look like
and what is removed by disregarding low-energy photons.
The enhancement at 120 MeV (0.12 GeV) is the tail of the neutral-pion signal.
In the inset of the lefthand side figure,
real COMPASS data are shown.
From this figure one reads that only diphoton pairs are accepted by COMPASS
when each of the photons has at least an energy of about 5 MeV.
Notice, furthermore, how small the signal at 38 MeV is in those data
which is due to a smaller resolution and a larger bin size
than what was achieved
in the diphoton spectrum of the previously exhibited COMPASS data.
In the righthand side figure,
I show the CMS diphoton spectrum.
The reason that in the CMS diphoton spectrum the lower peak is at 35 MeV
must be due to disregarding photons with energies lower than about 20 MeV.
For a confirmation of the E(38) CMS would have to lower the cuts
and apply smaller bin sizes,
such that the lower part of the diphoton spectrum becomes visible
and the E(38) can be recognised.
A further confirmation
stems from a team of Russian, Armenian
and Moldovian scientists
from JINR (Joint Institute of Nuclear Research), Dubna (Russia).
The team confirms the existence of a nuclear particle
which is lighter than any nuclear particle known to date, the E(38).
Title: Observation of the E(38)-boson
Authors: Kh.U. Abraamyan, A.B. Anisimov, M.I. Baznat,
K.K. Gudima, M.A. Nazarenko, S.G. Reznikov and A.S. Sorin
