New kaon decay modes?

As an amateur physicist, I get a regular stream of email updates from Science, Nature and Phys.org on new discoveries and new theories in quantum physics. I usually have no idea what to do with them. However, I want to single out two recent updates on the state of affairs of research which these channels report on. The first one is reflected in the title of this post. It’s on a very rare decay mode of kaons: see https://phys.org/news/2024-09-ultra-rare-particle-decay-uncover.html.

Something inside of me says this may lead to a review of all these newly invented conservation laws – combined with new ideas on symmetry breaking too – and/or new ‘quantum numbers’ that are associated with the quark hypothesis: I think everyone has already forgotten about ‘baryon conservation’, so other simplifications based on, yes, simpler Zitterbewegung models of particles may be possible.

The historical background to this is well described by Richard Feynman in his discussion of how these new quantum numbers – strangeness, specifically – were invented to deal with the observation that certain decay reactions were not being observed (see: Feynman’s Lectures, III-11-5, the (neutral) K-meson). So now it turns that certain decay reactions are being observed! Shouldn’t that lead to (future) scientists revisiting the quark/gluon hypothesis itself?

Of course, that would call into question several Nobel Prize awards, so we think it won’t happen any time soon. 🙂 This brings me to the second update from the field. Indeed, a more recent Nobel Prize in Physics which should, perhaps, be questioned in light of more recent measurements questioning old(er) ones (and the theories that are based on them) is the Nobel Prize in 2011 for work on the cosmological constant. Why? Because… Well… New measurements on the rate of expansion of the Universe as reported by Phys.org last month question the measurements which led to that 2011 Prize. Is anyone bothered by that? No. Except me, perhaps, because I am old-fashioned and wonder what is going on.

I get asked about gravity, and some people push particle theories to me talking about gravity. I am, quite simply, not interested. This ‘coming and going’ of the “cosmological constant hypothesis” over the past decades – or, should we say, the past 80 years or so – makes me stay away from GUTs and anything that is related to it. If scientists cannot even agree on these measurements, it is of not much use to invent new modified gravity theories fitting into ever-expanding grand unification schemes based on mathematical frameworks that can only be understood by the conoscienti, isn’t it?

It is tough: I am not the only one (and definitely not the best placed one) to see a lot of researchers – both amateur as well as professional – “getting lost in math” (cf. the title of Hossenfelder’s best-seller). Will there be an end to this, one day?

I am optimistic and so I think: yes. One of the recurring principles that guides some of the critical physicists I greatly admire is Occam’s Razor Principle: keep it simple! Make sure the degrees of freedom in your mathematical scheme match those of the physics you are trying to describe. That requires a lot of rigor in the use of concepts: perhaps we should add concepts to those that, say, Schrödinger and Einstein used 100 years ago. However, my own pet theories and recycling of their ideas do not suggest that. And so I really just can’t get myself to read up on Clifford algebras and other mathematical constructs I am told to study – simply because this or that person tells me I should think in terms of spinors rather than in terms of currents (to just give one specific example here).

I can only hope that more and more academics will come to see this, and that the Nobel Prize committee may think some more about rewarding more conservative approaches rather than the next cargo cult science idea.

OK. I should stop rambling. The musings above do not answer the question we all have: what about gravity, then? My take on that is this: I am fine with Einstein’s idea of gravity just being a reflection of the distribution of energy/mass in the Universe. Whether or not the Universe expands at an ever-faster-accelerating pace must, first, be firmly established by measurements and then, secondly, even then there may be no need for invoking a cosmological constant or other elements of a new “aetherial” theory of space and time.

Indeed, Einstein thought that his first hypothesis on a possible cosmological constant was “his biggest blunder ever.” While I know nothing of the nitty-gritty, I think it is important to listen to “good ol’ Einstein” – especially when he talked about what he ‘trusted’ or not in terms of physical explanations. Einstein’s rejection of the idea of a cosmological constant – after first coming up with it himself and, therefore, having probably having the best grasp of its implications – suggests the cosmological constant is just yet another non-justifiable metaphysical construct in physics and astronomy.

So, let us wrap up this post: is or is there not a need for ‘modified gravity’ theories? I will let you think about that. I am fine with Einstein’s ‘geometric’ explanation of it.

Post scriptum: While I think quite a few of these new quantum numbers related to quarks and – most probably – the quark hypothesis itself will be forgotten in, say, 50 or 100 years from now, the idea of some ‘triadic’ structure to explain the three generations of particles and strange decay modes, is – essentially – sound. Some kind of ‘color’ scheme (I call, rather jokingly, an “RGB scheme” – referring to the color scheme used in video/image processing) should be very useful: an electron annihilates a positron but an electron combines with a proton to form an atom, so there’s something different about these two charges. Likewise, if we think of a neutron as neutral neutronic current, the two charges “inside” must be very different… See pp. 7 ff. on this in my recent paper on multi-charge zbw models.

I was sceptical before – and I am still not a believer in the quark hypothesis – but I do think physicists – or, more likely, future generations of physicists – should get a better “grip” on these three different ‘types’ of electric charge as part of a more realist explanation of what second- or third-generation “versions” of elementary particles might actually be. Such explanation will then probably also explain these “unstable states” (not quite respecting the Planck-Einstein relation) or “exotic” particles. Indeed, I do not see much of a distinction between stable and unstable particle states in current physics. But that’s a remark that’s probably not essential to the discussion here… 🙂

One final remark, perhaps: my first instinct when looking at particle physics, was actually very much inspired by the idea that the quantum-mechanical wavefunction might be something else than just an EM oscillation. When I first calculated force fields in a Zitter electron, and then in the muon-electron and proton, I was rather shocked (see pp. 16 ff. of one of my early papers) and thought: wow! Are we modelling tiny black holes here? But then I quickly came to terms with it. Small massive things must come with such huge field strengths, and all particle radius formulas have mass (or energy) in the denominator: so more mass/energy means smaller scale, indeed! And I also quickly calculated the Schwarzschild radius for these elementary particles, and that is A WHOLE LOT smaller than the radius I get from my simple electromagnetic equations and the Planck-Einstein relation. So I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to think gravitational effects might take over from plain EM fields when you look at things at the smallest of scales.

But, then, who am I? I like to think I am not inventing anything new. I just enjoy playing with old ideas to see if something new comes out of it. I think I am fortunate because I do see a lot of new things coming out of the old ideas, even if there is little or nothing we can add to them: the old Masters have already written it all out. So, now I should stop chewing on these old ideas as well and conclude: if you want to read something, don’t read me or anything contemporary. Just read the classics! Many modern minds – often great mathematicians – tried or try to be smarter than Einstein, Lorentz, de Broglie or Schrödinger (I am deliberately not mentioning other great names): I think the more recent discoveries in physics and cosmology show they are not. 🙂

Note: Despite my recommendation not to read me, I did write another – probably more accessible – paper on a classical and straightforward geometrical explanation of the anomaly in the electron’s magnetic moment. Even if you do not like the explanation, I think it has a few interesting references to papers by contemporary academics that I find really interesting. 🙂