Number of quarks operator

  1. Hi everyone. In QFT one usually defines the "number of valence quarks" of a certain particle via the operator:
    \hat N_{val}=\sum_f |\hat Q_f|,$$
    \hat Q_f=\int d^3x \bar \psi_f\gamma_0\psi_f.$$

    According to this definition I expected, for example, for the [itex]J/\psi[/itex] to have [itex]N_{val}=0[/itex], i.e. the same quantum numbers as the vacuum. However, I can't understand what I am doing wrong. Very roughly speaking, in terms of creation/annhilation operators we have:
    \hat Q_c\sim (a_{\bar c}+a_c^\dagger)(a_c+a_{\bar c}^\dagger)=a_{\bar c}a_c+a_{\bar c}a^\dagger_{\bar c}+a_ca_c^\dagger+a^\dagger_c a^\dagger_{\bar c}.
    Hence, when applied to the particle [itex]|J/\psi\rangle=|\bar c c\rangle[/itex] is should give me:
    \hat Q_c|J/\psi\rangle\sim |0\rangle+2|\bar cc\rangle+|\bar c\bar ccc\rangle,
    $$ thus giving a number of valence quarks equal to 2. What's wrong with my calculation?

    Thanks a lot
  2. jcsd
  3. Bill_K

    Bill_K 4,157
    Science Advisor

    Isn't it [itex]N_c = a_c^\dagger a_c[/itex] for the quarks and [itex]N_{\bar c} = a_{\bar c}^\dagger a_{\bar c}[/itex] for the antiquarks? And then [itex]N = N_c - N_{\bar c}[/itex] is zero for the J/ψ state.
  4. Oh I think I got it. You are right. The point is that in the canonical quantization you need to write the operators using the "good order" prescription. I also wrote it incorrectly, we should have:
    \hat Q_c\sim(a_{\bar c}+a_c^\dagger)(a_c+a^\dagger_{\bar c})=a_{\bar c}a_c+a_{\bar c}a_{\bar c}^\dagger+a_c^\dagger a_c+a_c^\dagger a_{\bar c}^\dagger.
    In order to have the right order (annihilation on the left) you need to anticommute the second term, thus obtaining the extra minus sign.

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Draft saved Draft deleted