Is the superposition of mesons (such as pion) a new particle?

  • #1
James1238765
120
8
TL;DR Summary
In what sense can the superposition of meson states be called a new particle?
There are 36 hadron composites composed of 2 quarks selectable from the set ##[u, d, c, s, t, b, \bar u, \bar d, \bar c, \bar s, \bar t, \bar b]## satisfying the condition of having total charge = ##[-1, 0, 1]##. However, the superposition states of pure hadrons are sometimes also listed as new independent particles, for example [here]:

$$ \pi^0 = \frac{u \bar u - d \bar d}{\sqrt 2} $$

As superposition only means that whenever this particle is detected it will always assume the identity of either ##u \bar u## or ##d \bar d## meson, how is this ## \pi^0## considered a separate new particle?

The superposition of qubits also have a similar form ##\frac{|0> + |1>}{\sqrt 2}##, but we don't usually call this superposition state a new qubit, but rather only a superposition of the two basis states |0> and |1>?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
James1238765 said:
There are 36 hadron composites composed of 2 quarks selectable from the set ##[u, d, c, s, t, b, \bar u, \bar d, \bar c, \bar s, \bar t, \bar b]## satisfying the condition of having total charge = ##[-1, 0, 1]##.
Yes, but which of these are viewed as "composites" and which are not depends on your choice of basis.

James1238765 said:
However, the superposition states of pure hadrons are sometimes also listed as new independent particles, for example [here]:

$$ \pi^0 = \frac{u \bar u - d \bar d}{\sqrt 2} $$
No, this isn't a "new particle", it's a different choice of basis from the one you were implicitly assuming.

James1238765 said:
As superposition only means that whenever this particle is detected it will always assume the identity of either ##u \bar u## or ##d \bar d## meson
No, that's not what it means. There aren't two types of ##\pi^0## mesons. There is only one. If your claim here were true there would be two, distinguishable by experiment.

James1238765 said:
The superposition of qubits also have a similar form ##\frac{|0> + |1>}{\sqrt 2}##, but we don't usually call this superposition state a new qubit, but rather only a superposition of the two basis states |0> and |1>?
There are two quarks in a meson, not one. So to draw an analogy with qubits, you would have to look at two-qubit states, not one-qubit states. And with two-qubit states, there are entangled states that cannot be viewed as simple "superpositions" of one-qubit states, or pairs of them. The ##\pi^0## meson is like those entangled two-qubit states.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, PeroK, Orodruin and 2 others
  • #3
@PeterDonis thank you. I had not realized that ##\pi^0## can have different experimental properties than the basis ##u \bar u ## and ##d \bar d##! Could you list one (or a few) ways ##\pi^0## will behave differently than either ##u \bar u ## or ##d \bar d##'s properties please?
 
  • #4
James1238765 said:
I had not realized that ##\pi^0## can have different experimental properties than the basis ##u \bar u ## and ##d \bar d##! Could you list one (or a few) ways ##\pi^0## will behave differently than either ##u \bar u ## or ##d \bar d##'s properties please?
Neither ##u \bar{u}## nor ##d \bar{d}## are detected experimentally at all as far as I know, and are not predicted to be. That's why they're not listed in the Wikipedia article that you referenced.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark and James1238765
  • #5
@PeterDonis thank you. It is fascinating that there could be particles that are entangled as one, and have observably different properties than its respective basis states... Are there other examples perhaps like the ##\pi^0## which are superpositions of two basis states, where the two basis states have also been discovered, and how does this "superposition particle" behave differently than its constituent basis particles?
 
  • #6
James1238765 said:
It is fascinating that there could be particles that are entangled as one, and have observably different properties than its respective basis states
You seem to be placing way too much weight on "basis states". There is nothing special about them; they are just convenient mathematical objects that are used in models. They are not any "more real" or "preferred" than any other states.

The ##\pi^0## has a mathematical representation in the chosen basis that happens to look like a two-qubit entangled state, but that does not mean it is literally an entangled state of two "other particles". It isn't.

James1238765 said:
Are there other examples perhaps like the ##pi^0## which are superpositions of two basis states
Sure, just look in the tables in the Wikipedia article you referenced.

James1238765 said:
how does this "superposition particle" behave differently than its constituent basis particles?
This is a meaningless question, for the same reason I have already given: there are no such things as "constituent basis particles". The fact that a state happens to exist in the math and happens to be used as a convenient basis state does not mean that state is actually observed in experiments, or that other states must be "made of" the basis states. The whole point of the tables in the Wikipedia article is that those are the only states that are actually observed in experiments (or, in a few cases, that our Standard Model of particle physics predicts will be observed in experiments when we get accelerators of high enough energy). Some of those are "basis states" in the mathematical representation that is being used, and some aren't. That's just how it is.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark
  • #7
@PeterDonis I am still a little confused about basis states of quarks. We say the electron is a fundamental particle; the electron is not some combination of some other basis... Now let's move to the proton, which consists of ##uud##; aren't u and d fundamental "particles"? I guess I am unclear if all basis for the 6 quarks are equally valid, depending how we like to choose for our basis, then is there no physical meaning to call a u, d, c, s, t, and b the fundamental "quark particles"?
 
  • #8
James1238765 said:
We say the electron is a fundamental particle; the electron is not some combination of some other basis...
It's more complicated than that, but yes, the state we call "electron" is directly observed in experiments.

James1238765 said:
Now let's move to the proton, which consists of ##uud##; aren't u and d fundamental "particles"?
It depends on what you mean by "fundamental particles". ##u## and ##d## aren't observed in experiments, and can't be because of quark confinement. All we can observe in experiments are particular baryon and meson states that are particular combinations of quarks. Some combinations, like the proton ##uud##, "look simpler" than others, like the ##\pi^0##. But that's an artifact of the particular basis we choose to write down the states in. We could change basis so that the ##\pi^0## "looked simpler" than the proton if we wanted to; we just don't for various reasons.

James1238765 said:
I guess I am unclear if all basis for the 6 quarks are equally valid, depending how we like to choose for our basis, then is there no physical meaning to call a u, d, c, s, t, and b "quark particles"?
The term "quark" does not refer to the particular basis states; it refers to the underlying quantum fields. It's not exactly wrong to say that there are 6 quark fields, but it doesn't capture all of the complications either.

The term "particle" is best limited to the particular states we actually observe in experiments.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark, PeroK, Orodruin and 1 other person
  • #9
James1238765 said:
@PeterDonis I am still a little confused about basis states of quarks. We say the electron is a fundamental particle; the electron is not some combination of some other basis... Now let's move to the proton, which consists of ##uud##; aren't u and d fundamental "particles"? I guess I am unclear if all basis for the 6 quarks are equally valid, depending how we like to choose for our basis, then is there no physical meaning to call a u, d, c, s, t, and b the fundamental "quark particles"?
You could try my Insight:

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/a-beginners-guide-to-baryons/
 
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis, topsquark and James1238765
  • #10
James1238765 said:
@PeterDonis thank you. I had not realized that ##\pi^0## can have different experimental properties than the basis ##u \bar u ## and ##d \bar d##! Could you list one (or a few) ways ##\pi^0## will behave differently than either ##u \bar u ## or ##d \bar d##'s properties please?
"Particles" are asymptotic free "one-particle Fock states", be they composite (as all hadrons are when described in the quark model or QCD) or elementary. They must be mass eigen states as well as eigenstates of electric charge and color singlets. The three pseudoscalar pions are also states of fixed isospin 1.
 
  • Like
Likes James1238765 and topsquark

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
99
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top