Pair-production - how come it's always e+e-, never muons or tauons?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Doofy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Muons
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the phenomenon of pair production in high-energy physics, specifically why photons predominantly produce electron-positron pairs rather than muon-antimuon or tau lepton pairs, even when energy levels are sufficient for such processes. The conversation touches on theoretical aspects, particle nomenclature, and the underlying physics of production cross-sections.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that while electron-positron pairs are common in pair production, muon pairs can also be produced but are significantly suppressed by a factor of at least 1/40,000.
  • There is a discussion about the correct terminology, with multiple participants asserting that "tauon" is not an accepted term, preferring "tau lepton" instead.
  • One participant mentions a 1/m² dependence in the production cross-section, which contributes to the suppression of muon pair production compared to electron pair production.
  • Another participant questions whether the suppression factor is related to production rates near mass thresholds, suggesting that for the same collision energy, production rates should be comparable for different lepton pairs.
  • A later reply clarifies that the discussion pertains to pair production from a single photon in the Coulomb field of a nucleus, providing a formula for the total cross-section in high energy limits.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the behavior of numerical constants in the cross-section formula at high energies.
  • There is a historical note about the terminology used for tau leptons and muons, with references to past naming conventions and the evolution of language in the field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the terminology issue regarding "tauon" versus "tau lepton," but there is no consensus on the implications of the 1/m² dependence for pair production rates, as well as the specific conditions affecting muon and tau pair production.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes unresolved questions about the behavior of production cross-sections at high energies and the specific conditions under which different lepton pairs are produced.

Doofy
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
Everyone is familiar with photons pair-producing electrons and positrons, but how come it never seems to be a mu+ / mu- or tau+/tau- pair that gets produced, even when the photon is at a sufficient energy to produce any of these?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First, there is no such thing as a "tauon". It's a "tau lepton".

Second, muon pairs are produced - it's just suppressed by a factor of at least 1/40,000.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
First, there is no such thing as a "tauon". It's a "tau lepton".

Second, muon pairs are produced - it's just suppressed by a factor of at least 1/40,000.

I thought tau and tauon were interchangeable, I went for tauon to keep consistency with muon and electron.

Anyway, what is the reason for that supression?
 
Doofy said:
I thought tau and tauon were interchangeable

They're not. I say again, there is no such thing as a "tauon". It's "tau lepton".

There is a 1/m^2 dependence to the production cross-section, which is 40000x smaller for muons than electrons.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
They're not. I say again, there is no such thing as a "tauon". It's "tau lepton".

There is a 1/m^2 dependence to the production cross-section, which is 40000x smaller for muons than electrons.

ah right, that's that mystery solved. cheers.

PS. the wiki article on tau leptons reckons tauon is a valid name (1st line):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_(particle)
 
"Tau" is by far the dominant name for the particle. I was in grad school when it was discovered. I wrote a Monte-Carlo simulation of ##\nu_\tau + N \rightarrow \tau + X## followed by ##\tau \rightarrow e + \bar \nu_e + \nu_\tau## decay in an attempt to find tau-neutrino events in the neutrino experiment that I was working with. I don't remember any of the papers that I read, or people I talked to, using the name "tauon." Nor do I specifically remember seeing the name in the 30+ years since then, although I've kept only peripheral touch with the field.

Nevertheless, a search on http://scholar.google.com for "tauon" does turn up a number of hits, including published papers from 2010 and 2011 on the first page. So it's not unheard of.
 
Spires has 8 records for "tauon"* (and nearly 5000 for "tau"). Four are from one author (and three of those are unpublished) and are only cited by this one author. One was changed to tau by the journal, and one was a thesis. Of the remaining two, they are in the same journal - a journal where the style guide says not to use it.

I think we can safely say that this vocabulary isn't used. At least not by anyone who knows anything - Wikipedia notwithstanding.

* Compare that to a dozen references to "relativistic mass". (Including a lovely paper by Lev Okun, "The virus of relativistic mass in the year of physics")
 
jtbell said:
"Tau" is by far the dominant name for the particle. I was in grad school when it was discovered. I wrote a Monte-Carlo simulation of ##\nu_\tau + N \rightarrow \tau + X## followed by ##\tau \rightarrow e + \bar \nu_e + \nu_\tau## decay in an attempt to find tau-neutrino events in the neutrino experiment that I was working with. I don't remember any of the papers that I read, or people I talked to, using the name "tauon." Nor do I specifically remember seeing the name in the 30+ years since then, although I've kept only peripheral touch with the field.

Nevertheless, a search on http://scholar.google.com for "tauon" does turn up a number of hits, including published papers from 2010 and 2011 on the first page. So it's not unheard of.
Vanadium 50 said:
Spires has 8 records for "tauon"* (and nearly 5000 for "tau"). Four are from one author (and three of those are unpublished) and are only cited by this one author. One was changed to tau by the journal, and one was a thesis. Of the remaining two, they are in the same journal - a journal where the style guide says not to use it.

I think we can safely say that this vocabulary isn't used. At least not by anyone who knows anything - Wikipedia notwithstanding.

* Compare that to a dozen references to "relativistic mass". (Including a lovely paper by Lev Okun, "The virus of relativistic mass in the year of physics")

ah right, well I will abandon the term then. You can blame the British education system, that word has been floating around in my head since I was a GCSE or A-level student and that's definitely where I got it from.
 
  • #10
No, V50 is right, there's a 1/m2 dependence, even far away from threshold.

To be clear, this is not pair production from photon-photon collisions. This is pair production from a single photon in the Coulomb field of a nucleus. Jauch and Rohrlich give the total cross-section in the high energy limit as

σ = αZ2r02(A ln(ħω/mc2) - B)

where α of course is the fine structure constant, Z is the number of protons in the nucleus, A and B are ugly numerical constants you don't want to look at, and r0 = e2/4πmc2 is the classical electron (or muon!) radius. The r02 is what produces the 1/m2 dependence.
 
  • #11
If A and B are typically O(1), then I concede. But how do they behave at high energies?
 
  • #12
As I said, they are just numerical constants which I didn't want to write down. Oh well, A = 28/9 and B = 218/27.
 
  • #13
jtbell said:
"Tau" is by far the dominant name for the particle. I was in grad school when it was discovered. I wrote a Monte-Carlo simulation of ##\nu_\tau + N \rightarrow \tau + X## followed by ##\tau \rightarrow e + \bar \nu_e + \nu_\tau## decay in an attempt to find tau-neutrino events in the neutrino experiment that I was working with. I don't remember any of the papers that I read, or people I talked to, using the name "tauon." Nor do I specifically remember seeing the name in the 30+ years since then, although I've kept only peripheral touch with the field.

Nevertheless, a search on http://scholar.google.com for "tauon" does turn up a number of hits, including published papers from 2010 and 2011 on the first page. So it's not unheard of.
When I was in grad school there was an older professor who consistently called it a "tauon". He also consistently referred to the muon as the "mu meson" - as it had originally been called, due to the similarity in pi and mu masses - although by then that was considered to be flat-out wrong, since the mu ain't a meson.

I guess there are all kinds of names that get forgotten - I'm glad you don't see too many references to the "truth" and "beauty" quarks any more; those were still being used by a minority of physicists when I was a student. I'm looking forward to the day when no one remembers that anyone (especially physicists) ever called the Higgs the "god particle". :-)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K