What Causes the Mass Differences in Quark Doublets?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quark
Click For Summary
Quark mass differences in doublets arise from broken flavor symmetry, leading to asymmetries between paired quark flavors. The charm quark is significantly heavier than the strange quark, and the top quark is much more massive than the bottom quark, suggesting that charmness and topness contribute more to mass than their counterparts. If flavor symmetry were intact, quarks would exhibit mass degeneracy, but this is not observed in nature. The discussion highlights the role of electric charge as a potential mechanism for breaking flavor symmetry, which could lead to mass degeneracy under specific conditions. The conversation also raises questions about the Higgs field's influence on flavor doublets and the varying mass differences observed.
mathman
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
8,130
Reaction score
574
Quarks come in three pairs (u,d), (c,s), (t,b). For the lowest energy pair, the masses are approximately the same. However for the others, c is much heavier than s, and t is very much heavier than b. Is there some explanation from the theory, or is just a given to be explained by a more complete model?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It has to do with assymetry between the paired heavy-quark flavors. Charm quarks have much greater mass than strange quarks, probably because charmness contributes more mass than strangeness. Top quarks are much, much more massive than bottom quarks, probably because topness is a much stronger contributor to mass than bottomness is. Even with the up and down quarks there is some assymetry because isospin is not an exact symmetry of nature either. If isospin was an exact symmetry of nature, then the up and down quarks would become degenrerate in mass, and hence we would see such effects as the dissappearence of electric charge, the total degeneracy of nucleon masses, and the total degeneracy of pion masses, and all other isovector groups for that matter.
 
charmness contributes more mass than strangeness
topness is a much stronger contributor to mass than bottomness is.
Much as I hate to say it, your explanation sounds like the masses differences are a result of their being different.
 
AFAIK, the standard model gives no detailed account of the Higgs sector, where presumably the masses are determined.

I believe some of the supersymmetric models propose to explain the "mass spectrum". Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I can post on that.
 
mass degeneracy differences

What I am saying is that the reason there is a mass difference within the quark doublets is because flavour symmetry is broken. Isospin up and down are inverse, but no longer completely symmetrical. Charmness and strangeness could be considered inverse to each other, but they are no longer symmetrical. Topness and bottomness may be considered inverse, but they are no longer symmetrical. If there was total symmetry, then you would find the heavier flavors following a pattern where C = -S and T = -B. The up and down quarks would be degenerate in mass, the charm and strange quarks would be degenerate in mass, and the top and bottom quarks would be degenerate in mass.

Now, if there were no other influences, all indications are that flavor would be an exact symmetry of nature, and hence this degeneracy should exist at a limit such that all other forces become null. But we do not live in such a universe.

The up and down quarks are already a fairly good model due to the fact that they are already sufficiently degenerate that we can approximately express both quarks in terms of one flavor only. So we do not have to distinguish between "upness" and "downness" because they are very close to symmetry such that U = -D (approximately). Rather than use the flavor names, we just characterize it by one property, isospin.

Here's the first important question: What is the symmetry breaking mechanism? So far, we have some satisfactory theories; the foremost is already used as if it were a confirmed postulate, and there is alreay a great deal of work built up on it. Basically the idea is that electric charge, also known as electromagnetic symmetry, is the mechanism that breaks flavour symmetry. If you were to allow the Weinberg angle (which characterizes the splitting of weak and electromagnetic forces in the electro-weak regime) to approach a right angle, then the isospin symmetry becomes complete and electric charge dissappears. Hypercharge would be the only remaining component to be acted upon. The nucleons would become degenerate in mass and charge, and the pions would also do the same, as would all of the isospin groups. Also, the quarks would probably not mix; all of the non-diagonal terms in the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix would drop to zero, leaving the diagonals at unity. In this model there would be total degeneracy within the heavier flavour doublets, as well (so corresponding kaons and D-mesons would become degenerate, too).

Now, the second question is a bit trickier; I don't know if there is an effective answer yet, unless somebody has theorized that the Higgs field affects the flavour doublets differently based on overall mass (or something like that): Why is the degeneracy different in each doublet? I don't have any clues as yet, so I think that's the question to discuss and get some possible answers to.
 
Thread 'Some confusion with the Binding Energy graph of atoms'
My question is about the following graph: I keep on reading that fusing atoms up until Fe-56 doesn’t cost energy and only releases binding energy. However, I understood that fusing atoms also require energy to overcome the positive charges of the protons. Where does that energy go after fusion? Does it go into the mass of the newly fused atom, escape as heat or is the released binding energy shown in the graph actually the net energy after subtracting the required fusion energy? I...
Hello everyone, I am trying to calculate the energy loss and straggling of alpha particles with same energy, I used LISE++ to obtain the energy loss in every layer of the materials using Spectrometer Design of LISE++, but I can only calculate the energy-loss straggling layer by layer. Does anyone know the way to obtain the energy-loss straggling caused by every layer? Any help would be appreciated. J.