Are There GUTs Where the Proton Never Decays?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
16 replies · 4K views
billtodd
Messages
136
Reaction score
34
Are there any GUTs where the proton never decays?
One should write such a theory, perhaps me... :oldbiggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
billtodd said:
Are there any GUTs where the proton never decays?
Where have you looked to find out?

billtodd said:
One should write such a theory, perhaps me... :oldbiggrin:
That is off topic here, since PF is not for personal research.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50
Vanadium 50 said:
He asked us!
I looked at Wikipedia (German version) and got a brief, but sufficient answer. The English version is far more detailed so I didn't read it since I already had the main questions answered.

The question I would really like to be answered is: If it is true that Super-Kamiokande in Japan set a lower bound of ##1.6\cdot 10^{34}\,a## (by ##2017##), which are the consequences of this extremely marginal difference to stability. Admittedly, nearly zero and zero make a big difference in mathematics. But if I add the tolerance of measurement in the real world, can it ever be distinguished?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Are you worried about losing a sock to its protons decaying? Then you don't care if the lifetime has 34 or 36 zeroes. If you care which theory is right, then you do.
Sure. I just wondered if they are distinguishable at all! Or in other words: are there other possible tests with higher expectations of success than starring at a huge tank and waiting forever? And if we detect something, can we be sure it wasn't just noise?
 
fresh_42 said:
which are the consequences of this extremely marginal difference to stability
Um, the difference between not observing anything that would indicate that a proton decay had happened, and observing such a thing? The former is what happened with Super Kamiokande. But if the latter had happened, it would have made a difference.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
It;s fairly trivial to do this. Protons decay via [itex]p \rightarrow e \mu \tau[/itex] and neutrons via [itex]n \rightarrow 3\nu[/itex]. The harder part is to make a model that does this "naturally".
I know that neutron can decay (15 minutes in the limelight).
But I think that proton decay is impossible.
@PeterDonis you are right I haven't searched, I thought you knew of the existence of at least one theory that suggests an eternity lifetime for protons,,,,
 
pinball1970 said:
In the abstract they write:"However, abandoning the requirement of absolute proton stability"

If there's no absolute stability shouldn't it decay eventually? That's not seems what I was looking for.
But thanks, I guess I really need to read my Group Theory books for physicists.
BTW does anyone know where may I find the report/article of Infinite Quantization by Mark Srednicki, was it ever published?
 
billtodd said:
I think that proton decay is impossible.
Based on what?

billtodd said:
I haven't searched
Then you should. The answer to your question is easy to find, and I don't see why you should expect someone else to do that work for you.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50
billtodd said:
But I think that proton decay is impossible.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.

The putative neutron decay [itex]n \rightarrow 3\nu[/itex] gets lumped in with "proton decay" as both processes violate baryon number conservation. The ordinary neutron decay [itex]n \rightarrow pe\nu[/itex] does not.
 
PeterDonis said:
Based on what?
Call it my GUT feeling...
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier