Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optical theorem (OT), allowing the determination of the total cross section for a hadron–hadron scattering from the imaginary part of the forward elastic scattering amplitude, is believed to be an unavoidable consequence of the conservation of probability and of the unitary S matrix. This is a fundamental theorem which contains an imaginary part of the forward elastic scattering amplitude that is not directly measurable. The impossibility of scattering phenomena without the elastic channel is considered to be a part of the quantum magic. However, if one takes seriously the idea that the hadrons are extended particles, one may define a unitary S matrix such that one cannot prove the OT. Moreover, data violating the OT do exist, but they are not conclusive due to the uncertainties related to the extrapolation of the differential elastic cross-section to the forward direction. These results were published several years ago, but they were forgotten. In this paper we will recall these results in an understandable way, and we will give the additional arguments why the OT can be violated in high energy strong interaction scattering and why it should be tested and not simply used as a tool in LHC experiments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".