Possible violation of the optical theorem in LHC experiments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optical theorem 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 not directly measurable imaginary part of the forward elastic scattering amplitude. 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 optical theorem. Moreover data violating the optical theorem 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 optical theorem 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it