Could second and third generation SM particles NOT be fundamental?

ensabah6
Messages
691
Reaction score
0
could second and third generation SM particles NOT be fundamental?

since they are unstable and rapidly decay, could second and third generation SM particles NOT be fundamental? perhaps as bound states of more fundamental first generation particles?

if they are not fundamental, then do we have to worry about SUSY partners of these?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Very, very, very, very unlikely. Their decay happens because it can, and it happens faster for more massive particles because there are more possible momenta that the resulting particles can have.

You can ask "How can that be possible, since momentum is a continuous quantity and not a discrete one"? The answer is that the possible momenta will be discrete for a finite volume, and that there are thus more possible momenta if the total energy is large.

With a large enough volume, the sums become integrals, making the calculation somewhat easier. The volume also drops out of the final results for decay rates and cross sections.

One can also use dimensional analysis to estimate the behavior of decay rates. If a particle's decays involve highly-relativistic and/or massless particles, then the most significant mass scale will be the parent particle's mass. Since in quantum mechanics with hbar = c = 1, mass, momentum, and energy have units of reciprocal length and time, the decay rate will be proportional to the particle's mass.

Violation of these conditions can lead to much greater dependence on mass. Weak interactions, for m << mW, give

m5/v4

m = particle's mass, v = Higgs vacuum expectation value
 
lpetrich said:
Furthermore, there isn't any evidence of such compositeness.

Figure 41.6 in Plots of cross sections and related quantities (rev.) at the Particle Data Group site shows how well electron-positron collision rates agree with the Standard Model.

Can't there be a bound state that also agrees electron-positron collision rates agree with the Standard Model? Or could second/third generation be a quantized excited version of first generation, etc?
 
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