Is the Proton's Half Life Really 10 to the Power of 32 Years?

In summary, the conversation discusses the stability and possible decay of the proton, with some sources stating it is stable while others claim it has a half life of 10 to the power of 32 years. The only proposed decay for a proton is into a positron and photon, which does not conserve baryon number. The conversation also touches on the concept of proton decay and its relation to the second law of thermodynamics. However, it is mentioned that the proton is considered stable on time scales longer than the age of the universe and experiments have not observed any decay. The conversation then shifts to the possibility of other particles, such as the electron, also being unstable.
  • #36
Where did all the electrons disappear too?

chroot said:
If you separate electrons from protons, you have a box of electrons and a box of protons. You can't destroy electrons, nor can you create them.

- Warren

Warren,

Assuming you now have a box of electrons, and the walls of the box, act as a square-square potential well - quantum barrier which we can control, to release only one single electron at a 'time'.

Now we build two concentric circular walls around the box, the inner wall has two slits in it and the outter wall is painted white.

How did the electrons tunnel throught the wall?

Where do all the electrons disappear too?

Where did all the photons appear from and how?

I can only see a intereference wave pattern, but no electrons?

"You can't destroy electrons" - or matter or energy only change its form.

Regards

Terry Giblin
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
garytse86 said:
yes but in an acid, you don't get H+ ions but H30+ ions instead

How is that relevant?

In a chemical reaction, by definition the number of protons do not change. Actually, even the number of protons in each nucleus is not altered.
 
  • #38
ahrkron said:
How is that relevant?

In a chemical reaction, by definition the number of protons do not change. Actually, even the number of protons in each nucleus is not altered.

yes but the proton is not chemically stable otherwise it would not form an ion with H2O.
 
  • #39
We're not talking about "chemical stability," gary, for the last time.

- Warren
 
  • #40
I have split off MRP's discussion of whether or not chemistry includes nuclear effects to the Theory Development subforum.

- Warren
 
  • #41
Isn't a proton just a combination of quarks?

It is stable, yet turns into a Neutron by means of Weak Force quickly...(in the atom)
 
  • #42
IooqXpooI said:
Isn't a proton just a combination of quarks?
Yes.
IooqXpooI said:
It is stable, yet turns into a Neutron by means of Weak Force quickly...(in the atom)
I think you mean 'in a nucleus', and only in certain cases, e.g. where it can capture an orbital electron, and where the resulting nucleus has lower energy than the starting one, ...
 
  • #43
And in radio-active decay, it reverts back to a proton, from a neutron by decay emitance of either, an electron, or a positron. (and a neutrino too, I suspect, I recall)
 
  • #44
Beta decay:

[tex]n \rightarrow p + e^- + \overline{\nu}_e[/tex]

- Warren
 
  • #45
Note the inverse process is not a 'decay', its a reaction... One with very small cross section too I might add.

So the point stands, the proton has nothing to decay into... In nuclear and particle physics, any situation like that is defined to be 'stable'. Note this is not the same meaning as a chemist would use, where typically you aren't dealing with extreme vacuums.

You have to go beyond the SDM* to find a mechanism for its decay. (*aside from one technicality which has vanishingly small contribution)
 
  • #46
What I don't understand is why the sum of the mass of the quarks composing the proton is larger than the mass of the proton.

Experimentally it can be said that the formation of proton liberates mass in term of energy because it takes about the same energy to form the jets which have proven the existence of quarks. But individual quark cannot be isolated. How much more energy does it takes to isolate the quark?
 
  • #47
Have protons been created experimentally? or are you simply referring to the math's prediction(s)?
 
  • #48
Experimental verification of quarks by the formation of jets proving the compositeness of nucleons and mesons of all hadrons.
 
  • #49
Antonio Lao said:
What I don't understand is why the sum of the mass of the quarks composing the proton is larger than the mass of the proton.
You have it backward. The proton has more mass than the sum of its constituent quarks, because the binding energy between them counts as additional mass via E=mc2.
How much more energy does it takes to isolate the quark?
You can't isolate quarks, because the energy required to pull two apart is more than the energy required to create two more. In other words, you can pull a pair apart to a point and then *pop* you'll wind up with two pairs.

- Warren
 
Last edited:
  • #50
Uhmmm, this was the question I had asked: "Have protons been created experimentally?" Lord knows what question you answered...
 
  • #51
The natural decay of the "free" neutron does produce a proton as shown by trivial experiments requiring a lot less energy than all other modern accelerators.
 
  • #52
I'd like to make sure that you understand, Robin, that these protons are not being created out of nothingness; that would violate many conservation rules. Instead, when you smash bits of matter together in particle accelerators, the kinetic energy of the particles can be manifested in the creation of various kinds of particles, some very exotic -- that's the fun part. In no situation does an experiment end up with more mass and energy than it started with, however.

- Warren
 
  • #53
Robin Parsons,

As a novice in any experimental process, I know I don't how to create a proton. And I don't recall any experiment done by the experts. But in the early age of the universe, I think, it was naturally done by the first nucleosynthesis?.
 
  • #54
Just to make sure that there are NO misconceptions about our ability to create protons experimentally, we can do this the quick and dirty way (zap a hydrogen atom with enough energy and voila! We have a proton), or systematically to generate a high "quality", low emittance, high brightness proton beam as done routinely at Fermilab and many other accelerator/collider facilities.

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/physics/accelerators/chainaccel.html

Zz.
 
  • #55
I am thinking more in the line of creating proton from the component quarks than that of dissociation of hydrogen atoms.
 
  • #56
Antonio Lao said:
I am thinking more in the line of creating proton from the component quarks than that of dissociation of hydrogen atoms.

Yes, I was aware of that. I was merely addressing to the broader issue of "can we create protons experimentally", in case there are peole jumping in in the middle and see a discussion that might give them the impression that we do not know decisively that we have created protons.

As for your line of thinking, either beta decay (change of flavor by quarks) might answer your question, or you will have to wait till we make and verify the first gamma-gamma collider.

Zz.
 
  • #57
Sorry for my being narrow and one trackly minded.
 
  • #58
If the theroies are correct mass and energy are essentially the same thing just in a different form. It is not impossible for a decay of protons. Everything changes so over time it is not unlikely that the energy of the proton would decay into its principle parts. I just don't think that we know or understant all of the parts yet.
 
  • #59
taxman,

According to the standard model, it is absolutely impossible for protons to decay. The argument "everything changes over time" is not a strong one at all.

- Warren
 
  • #60
taxman said:
If the theroies are correct mass and energy are essentially the same thing just in a different form. It is not impossible for a decay of protons. Everything changes so over time it is not unlikely that the energy of the proton would decay into its principle parts. I just don't think that we know or understant all of the parts yet.
Welcome to Physics Forums, taxman!

As chroot said, the proton is a stable particle in the Standard Model, so it will not decay (by itself; there are certainly situations under which it will 'decay' e.g. in certain proton-rich nuclides). Of course, one of the tests of the Standard Model is to look for decays of the proton. AFAIK, several research projects to find proton decays, by a wide variety of channels, have been undertaken. No confirmed proton decays have been observed, so we can conclude that the proton's 'half-life' is at least 1038 years (though it may be somewhat less, in some hypothesised decay modes).

To put this into context, a proton half-life of 1038 years would mean an expectation of just *one* decay in ~12,000 moles of ordinary hydrogen, in a period of time equal to the life of the universe to date!
 
  • #61
chroot said:
taxman,

According to the standard model, it is absolutely impossible for protons to decay. The argument "everything changes over time" is not a strong one at all.

To that I would add only that "everything changes over time" does not imply "everything decays". The proton does constantly change--internally. There are gluons running around, virtual quark-antiquark pairs constantly popping into and out of existence, etc. Also, if struck with a sufficiently energetic particle, the proton will be exicted into a resonance, and then deexcite back down.

The inside of a proton is a hive of activity. It just so happens that it goes through all that change without changing its asymptotic identity (that is, it don't decay :tongue: ).
 
  • #62
As for the question of artifitial production of protons... Machines as the LEP get hadrons, ie mesons and barions, from the product of electron positron colisions. This should include protons, shouldn't it?
 
  • #63
The original question was about the stability of the proton. I agree that the proton does not decay, but I do not believe that we can "prove" this. One could imagine a scenario the the original post presented - proton --> positron + photon. Certainly this is allowed by energy considerations. But it is not allowed by conservation of lepton number. In fact, for every proton decay that you can imagine that does not violate conservation of energy (a physics axiom), a conservation law is broken.
I think that this fact is what makes the original question really important. If we could observe a proton decay, we would be observing the breaking of a conservation law. Since we believe in many conservation laws, the direct experimental contradiction of them would be crucial for retooling our thinking.

Another example of a process which "cannot" happen is neutrinoless beta decay. People look for this process, which would violate lepton number conservation. If they found it, the proton decay question would almost certainly need to be revisited.
 
  • #64
More to the point...

Unless the laws of statistics have changed since I left school.

Has anyone simply calculated the probability that we have not seen a proton decay already, by now - what's the definition of a "half-life"?

Regards

Terry Giblin
 
  • #65
The only way a proton would disintegrate is if it were to have a tremendously high speeds. Asymptotic freedom then states that the strong force becomes smaller so the fluxtube between the constituent quarks will "decay" into gluons and the quarks would move away from each other.

At least this is the picture of the dual abelian higgs model using the concept of dual superconductivity and the S-duality of coupling constants + charge quantization from Dirac.

Ahhh, and you also need magnetic monopoles, responsible for this quantization.

regards
marlon
 
  • #66
I really don't get it Marlon. The proton is more likely to decay at higher speed !? Usually, at higher speed, decay is just lowered by lorentz contraction of time. Or : the fastest decay should occur in the rest frame !

I could concieve that there is a dynamical process occurring during the acceleration process.




bkfizz02 said:
for every proton decay that you can imagine that does not violate conservation of energy (a physics axiom), a conservation law is broken.
Barionic number conserved through other conservation laws !?
Oh, by the way : is barionic number conservation not much better experimentally tested than the other conservation laws (with regards to proton's lifetime. I have been checking PDG online, and I am not quite sure.) ?
 
  • #67
bkfizz02 said:
The original question was about the stability of the proton. I agree that the proton does not decay, but I do not believe that we can "prove" this. One could imagine a scenario the the original post presented - proton --> positron + photon. .

The idea of proton decay comes from GUT (Grand Unifying theories). In the standard model, we have the gauge group SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), where SU(3) describes a (non-broken) gauge symmetry group between the colors of the quarks (and the relevant bosons are the gluons of the strong interaction), while SU(2)xU(1) describes the (broken) symmetry of the electroweak charges (essentially chirality, hypercharge and electrical charge) and the relevant bosons are W+, W-, Z0 and the photon.

As such, there is no interaction possible which turns a quark into a lepton and from this follows baryon conservation. In the standard model, the 3 lepton families, and the 3 quark families, have a priori not much to do with each other, but the very fact that there are 3 of each cries out for a deeper structure.
Indeed, if you make a large tuple of all the fermion fields in one family (the 2 quarks - righthand, the two quarks - lefthand, the electron and neutrino - lefthand, and the electron, righthand) this big tuple transforms under a composite representation of SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) which is really put in there by hand. On the other hand, it fits into only 2 different representations of SU(5), which contains SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), namely the so-called 5* and the 10 representation. But SU(5) is not equal to SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), it contains in fac t 24 gauge bosons, so there are EXTRA INTERACTIONS, and some of these link quarks and leptons, which comes down to say that a quark could, through this interaction, change into a lepton. Of course one assumes that this symmetry is broken, and that the relevant bosons have a big mass (the "GUT" scale), which decreases this interaction rate. If one estimates this scale (that's where the 3 coupling constants of the standard model should unify) one arrives at something of 10^15 GeV. Using this value, the proton decay rate should be of the order of a life time of 10^31 years, which has been falsified by experiment. So that's where all the hassle came from.
But people have not given up: other groups than SU(5) are possible ; this was simply the "smallest" group that could contain the standard model. People have been working on SO(10), for example.

cheers,
Patrick.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
IIRC, the experimentally observed limit on the proton's half-life is ~1035 years, at least for several (one?) of the more 'likely' decay modes.
 
  • #69
What's the probability of not seeing one decay

vanesch said:
the proton decay rate should be of the order of a life time of 10^31 years, which has been falsified by experiment.


Lets assume the half-life on an electron, as estimated is 10^31 years, based on our current on going testing for detection of the first ever observed proton decay.

Is it not time to start considering alternative ideas and models

Regards

Terry Giblin
 
  • #70
Terry Giblin said:
Lets assume the half-life on an electron, as estimated is 10^31 years, based on our current on going testing for detection of the first ever observed proton decay.
Why not simply do an experiment to measure the half-life of the electron? How do experimental results showing that the half-life of the proton is ~>1035 years lead to an estimate of half-life of the electron?
Is it not time to start considering alternative ideas and models
Of course! It's been obvious for some time that the Standard Model is in need of replacement/extension/etc! I doubt that there are any researchers active in particle physics who feel that the Standard Model is the end. :rolleyes:
 
<h2>1. What is the half-life of a proton?</h2><p>The half-life of a proton is currently estimated to be approximately 10 to the power of 32 years, which is an incredibly long time. This means that it takes 10 to the power of 32 years for half of a given number of protons to decay.</p><h2>2. How do scientists determine the half-life of a proton?</h2><p>Scientists determine the half-life of a proton through experiments and observations. They use sophisticated instruments and techniques to measure the decay rate of protons and calculate the time it takes for half of them to decay.</p><h2>3. Why is the half-life of a proton important?</h2><p>The half-life of a proton is important because it helps us understand the fundamental properties of matter and the laws of physics. It also has implications for the stability and lifespan of the universe.</p><h2>4. Can the half-life of a proton change?</h2><p>The current estimate for the half-life of a proton is based on our current understanding of physics. However, as our understanding evolves and new discoveries are made, this estimate may change. Therefore, the half-life of a proton is not a fixed value and can potentially change in the future.</p><h2>5. How does the half-life of a proton compare to other particles?</h2><p>The half-life of a proton is significantly longer than that of other particles, such as neutrons and electrons. For example, the half-life of a neutron is only about 15 minutes, while the half-life of an electron is believed to be infinite. This highlights the stability of protons and their importance in the structure of atoms.</p>

1. What is the half-life of a proton?

The half-life of a proton is currently estimated to be approximately 10 to the power of 32 years, which is an incredibly long time. This means that it takes 10 to the power of 32 years for half of a given number of protons to decay.

2. How do scientists determine the half-life of a proton?

Scientists determine the half-life of a proton through experiments and observations. They use sophisticated instruments and techniques to measure the decay rate of protons and calculate the time it takes for half of them to decay.

3. Why is the half-life of a proton important?

The half-life of a proton is important because it helps us understand the fundamental properties of matter and the laws of physics. It also has implications for the stability and lifespan of the universe.

4. Can the half-life of a proton change?

The current estimate for the half-life of a proton is based on our current understanding of physics. However, as our understanding evolves and new discoveries are made, this estimate may change. Therefore, the half-life of a proton is not a fixed value and can potentially change in the future.

5. How does the half-life of a proton compare to other particles?

The half-life of a proton is significantly longer than that of other particles, such as neutrons and electrons. For example, the half-life of a neutron is only about 15 minutes, while the half-life of an electron is believed to be infinite. This highlights the stability of protons and their importance in the structure of atoms.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
8K
Back
Top