Sorry — I only now noticed your comment! I think a measurement of J/psis at CMS would actually be quite interesting and not redundant to the Tevatron one simply because the initial state is different – even if you look at exactly the same observables. At the Tevatron, the main effect for polarized J/psi’s (and Upsilons) comes from qqbar -> glue -> J/psi process — so the J/psi is predicted to be transverse in NRQCD because it retains gluon’s polarization. At the LHC, as you well know, the dominant sub-process is glue-glue collisions. So the situation will be different.

Also, I would expect that CMS can do much better job on Upsilon production. This way one of the arguments of why NRQCD predictions don’t work — that the charm quark is too light — does not apply.

Are you planning to look into quarkonium production at the LHC?

Anyone who has an interest in the mass boson, LHC, Fermi, and physics history will find it a great read and probably agree that it is the one of the most definitive histories on the Higgs boson theory discovery.

If you want to know what theoretical physics was like back in the 60’s it also discussed that and the key players at those locations in Cambridge, London, and Rochester. Most importantly, it tells the story of the mass boson through the eyes of GHK and the merits of the three papers that were credited (and recognized as milestone papers this year by PRL’s 50th anniversary) for the mass boson discovery back in 1964. The paper will most likely tick off a few Europeans but it is the first honest assessment of the three papers that have been written.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3466
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.3466v1.pdf

The paper was published in a recent issue of International Journal of Modern Physics A (IJMPA). Volume: 24, Issue: 14 (2009) pp. 2601-2627

http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpa/24/2414/S0217751X09045431.html

Look forward to your thoughts.

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2008/05/16/the-jpsi-particle-original-papers

>>>>>>>>>>>>>from the above link>>>>>>>>>

Both PH and EB worked in the Lorentz (i.e., manifestly covariant) gauge. Thus the Goldstone theorem would be fully expected to apply. However, PH is also done purely classically (i.e., without quantum theory), which means that the Goldstone theorem (a result from QUANTUM field theory) really has no obvious application. What PH does is to show that with a broken symmetry condition the classical field equations can be juggled into the form of the equations of a MASSIVE vector boson. Namely, the broken symmetry condition gives mass. That is a good thing, but what of the radiation gauge avoidance of the Goldstone theorem which PH had touted in his earlier paper? Is it not strange that that avoidance mechanism is not mentioned in the PH paper?

EB do some calculations in quantum field theory in which they impose a broken symmetry condition. Given the fact that a broken symmetry condition introduces a mass parameter into the theory it is not surprising that they also find a MASSIVE vector boson. But what of the zero mass particle which they must have according to the Goldstone theorem? They need to show that there is a decoupling of that particle from the physical sectors of the theory. In other words, it needs to show the zero mass particle is purely a so-called gauge excitation. That is in fact the case, but is not shown in EB.

GHK uses the radiation gauge and shows that a massive vector particle emerges from a broken symmetry condition. Thus GHK achieves the goal of lending mass to the vector particle, but is not plagued by the encumbrance of the Goldstone theorem. Moreover, GHK shows explicitly the precise way in which the Goldstone theorem fails in the context of their model.

One can thus sum up by saying that in a sense PH and EB solved half of the problem – namely massifying the gauge particle. GHK really solved an entire problem – massifying and also showing how the deadening hand of the Goldstone theorem is avoided.

The unexpected polarization of the prompt J/psi signal has always been puzzling – I am convinced that the analysis was well done. So it is interesting that Pierre Artoisenet has an explanation. The CMS experiment at the LHC plans to do a lot with J/psi signals with the early data – whenever it comes. Is there an interesting test that could be done with 10 TeV pp collisions that is not redundant with the measurements done with 2 TeV ppbar collisions? (I imagine the answer is no, but I am no expert!)

thanks
Michael