I Can Neutrinos Be Their Own Anti-Particles?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter mifcvm
  • Start date Start date
mifcvm
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
If the neutrino has zero charge, can it be its own anti-particle? If they are the same particle, can they annihilate?
Or are they different particles?
In addition, I read that annihilation would violate one of the conservation laws of the standard model (leptonic number)... How does this happen?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mifcvm said:
If the neutrino has zero charge, can it be its own anti-particle?
In some theories yes, the neutrinos are their own antiparticles (see for example Majorana neutrinos). But still you would need right-handed neutrinos and left-handed antineutrinos for that (which could potentially exist but not interact with the weak interactions).

mifcvm said:
If they are the same particle, can they annihilate?
Yes, they could potentially annihilate and you would have processes like the neutrinoless double-beta decay. Searches for those decays in nuclei that are unstable to double beta decays have not found anything significant (they only set limits).

mifcvm said:
In addition, I read that annihilation would violate one of the conservation laws of the standard model (leptonic number)... How does this happen?
Again think of the neutrinoless double beta decay, you would have the production of 2 beta particles out of nowhere (and without neutrinos to account for the lepton number conservation). Your lepton number would go from 0 to (-)2...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_beta_decay#/media/File:Double_beta_decay_feynman.svg
 
  • Like
Likes mifcvm
A neutrino has zero electric charge. Electric charge is not the only quantum number particles have.

It is possible that they are their own antiparticles, experiments cannot rule out (or confirm) that yet. It would mean neutrinos are Majorana fermions.
If they are, the lepton numbers as we usually define them are not conserved quantities any more. Neutrinoless double beta decay would become possible, the search for this decay is one of the main methods how this is studied.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, berkeman and mifcvm
ChrisVer said:
But still you would need right-handed neutrinos and left-handed antineutrinos for that (which could potentially exist but not interact with the weak interactions).
This is not correct. Majorana neutrinos do not require the existence of right-handed neutrinos. The most basic example of this being the type-II seesaw model where the Weinberg operator is generated when integrating out a scalar triplet instead of singlet fermions.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and ChrisVer
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top