Problems with fundamental particles and quarks

In summary: Different quarks have different masses. Also, the heavier quarks (charm/bottom/top mostly) are unstable, i.e. they will spontaneously decay into lighter particles in a short time, so if they were in the proton, we would expect protons to decay quickly. That doesn't happen.3. It's really not. People just say that sometimes, because once you get down to protons and neutrons, it's all really really small :wink:4. Generations are kind of like rows in the periodic table. The first generation/row contains the up and down quarks, and the electron and its neutrino. The second generation contains a set of particles
  • #1
Owen-
40
0
Problems with fundamental particles and quarks :(

Hi, I have no idea where to post this so I hope its ok...

I'm studying A level physics. We have a topic on fundamental particles.

Yea couple of questions...

1. Whats the difference between a (insert lepton here)-neutrino, and its antiparticle, or any particle that has no charge and its antiparticle

I know they have negative lepton/baryon numbers, but in reality what effect does that have...? (also the difference between the pion pi0 and its antiparticle...?)

2. How does one determint the quark composition of... say a proton. its supposed to be up up down. why could it not be top top bottom, or charm charm strange, when all these have the same baryon number and charge respectively...

3. How is a "fundamental particle" fundamental if its made up of quarks

4. I don't get what generations mean either...

Sorry about noobish questions but I am totally confused :s

Thanks,
Owen.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


1. A particle can annihilate with its antiparticle to produce something else, typically a photon. So there is definitely a physical difference between the particle and its antiparticle, even if it's not something so obvious as charge. The lepton/baryon number is one way we have of quantifying that difference.

2. Different quarks have different masses. Also, the heavier quarks (charm/bottom/top mostly) are unstable, i.e. they will spontaneously decay into lighter particles in a short time, so if they were in the proton, we would expect protons to decay quickly. That doesn't happen.

3. It's really not. People just say that sometimes, because once you get down to protons and neutrons, it's all really really small :wink:

4. Generations are kind of like rows in the periodic table. The first generation/row contains the up and down quarks, and the electron and its neutrino. The second generation contains a set of particles that are pretty much identical except for having higher masses (except that we're not sure about the neutrino). Same for the third generation.
 
  • #3


Ah thanks a lot - cleared pretty much everything up for me - your a hero :)
 
  • #4


Let me add to the explanation for number 1 that it is, in fact, possible that neutrinos are their own anti-particles. (In the literature, this is discussed under the name "Majorana neutrinos.") In fact, every model I've seen that has a natural way of making the neutrino masses small without unreasonably tiny Higgs couplings uses Majorana neutrinos.

This, of course, violates lepton number. However, even in the standard model, lepton number alone is not always conserved. There are non-perturbative electroweak configurations called "sphaelerons" which break the individual conservations of baryon and lepton numbers, but conserve their difference. Making neutrinos Majorana particles would violate this conservation as well.
 
  • #5


Regarding 2: there are a lot more possible classifications of a particle than only via its electric charge; two examples are
- the different types of quarks are classified acdcording to their flavor (u, d, ...);
- the strong interaction couples not to electric charge but to "color" (not the color we can see, of course :-)

Mathematically flavour, color etc. are something like "charge"; they share some properties with the electric charge.
 
  • #6


diazona said:
1. A particle can annihilate with its antiparticle to produce something else, typically a photon. So there is definitely a physical difference between the particle and its antiparticle, even if it's not something so obvious as charge. The lepton/baryon number is one way we have of quantifying that difference.

Can a neutrino and anti neutrino annihilate into a photon? There is no vertex "neutrino photon neutrino" vertex in the standard model.
 
  • #7


Neutrinos interact only via Z-bosons; so they would annihilate into Z's
 
  • #8


Prathyush said:
Can a neutrino and anti neutrino annihilate into a photon? There is no vertex "neutrino photon neutrino" vertex in the standard model.

This would have to be a virtual photon; but, the answer is yes. There's a 1-loop diagram that creates this coupling. Essentially, the neutrino emits a virtual [itex]W^+[/itex] and becomes a charged lepton of any flavor, the antineutrino absorbs the [itex]W^+[/itex] and becomes the corresponding antilepton, and the charged leptons annihilate into a (virtual) photon.
 
  • #9


OK, via higher loops it's possible. But is there a way to have only photons in the final state?
 
  • #10


tom.stoer said:
OK, via higher loops it's possible. But is there a way to have only photons in the final state?

Sure. There are box diagrams that give [itex]\nu \overline{\nu} \rightarrow \gamma \gamma[/itex]. They're highly suppressed, but definitely there.
 

1. What are fundamental particles and quarks?

Fundamental particles are the smallest and most basic building blocks of matter. Quarks are a type of fundamental particle that make up protons and neutrons, which in turn make up atoms.

2. How do scientists study problems with fundamental particles and quarks?

Scientists study these particles using particle accelerators, which are large machines that accelerate particles to very high speeds and then collide them with one another. They also use detectors to analyze the results of these collisions.

3. What are some current problems or limitations with our understanding of fundamental particles and quarks?

One major problem is the lack of a unified theory that explains the behavior of all fundamental particles and their interactions. Additionally, scientists are still trying to understand the nature of dark matter, which is believed to be made up of unknown fundamental particles.

4. How do fundamental particles and quarks relate to the concept of mass and energy?

Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2, shows the relationship between mass and energy. Fundamental particles and quarks have both mass and energy, and their interactions can result in the conversion of one to the other.

5. How do problems with fundamental particles and quarks impact our everyday lives?

Although the study of these particles may seem abstract and disconnected from our daily lives, understanding their behavior and properties has led to advancements in technology and medicine. For example, particle accelerators are used in medical imaging and cancer treatment, and the discovery of quarks led to the development of new materials and technologies.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
910
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
997
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top