What is the phenomena of Mixing?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter HeavyWater
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mixing Phenomena
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the phenomenon of mixing in particle physics, particularly focusing on the transformation of particles and their antiparticles, as well as the implications of mixing in the context of quantum mechanics and the Standard Model. Participants explore examples, definitions, and the underlying principles of mixing, including its relation to quantum states and interactions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the basic idea of mixing and requests simple examples, indicating a desire for foundational understanding.
  • Another participant provides an example of mixing involving the transformation of a ##D^0## meson into its antiparticle ##\overline{D^0}##, suggesting this as a basic illustration of the concept.
  • Some participants argue that mixing does not necessarily involve particle-antiparticle pairs, emphasizing that it can occur between particles with the same quantum numbers, leading to non-diagonal interaction Hamiltonians.
  • Discussion includes the role of weak interactions in mixing, particularly how they differ from strong interactions and their implications for flavor-changing processes.
  • References are made to historical discoveries in mixing, such as CP violation in the ##\mathrm{K}_0 \bar{\mathrm{K}}_0## system and its significance in neutrino physics.
  • Participants acknowledge the complexity of the topic, with some expressing gratitude for clarifications that enhance their understanding of concepts like mass eigenstates and diagonalization.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the complexity of mixing and its implications in particle physics, but multiple competing views remain regarding the specifics of what constitutes mixing and the examples that best illustrate it. The discussion remains unresolved in terms of a singular definition or example that satisfies all participants.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying levels of understanding among participants, differing interpretations of mixing, and the dependence on specific definitions of quantum states and interactions. Some mathematical concepts remain unexplored or only partially addressed.

HeavyWater
Messages
55
Reaction score
4
I absolutely do not get it. I have read the boards in this section. What is the phenomena of mixing? I am just asking a simple question. I don't need to know about the CKM matrix (at least not yet) or D-zero mesons. What is a simple example (if there is one) of mixing? What do I start with? What do I end with? What do we end up with something is mixed? Are we making something that doesn't already exist? I just don't understand the basic idea. ( I've looked in Sakuri, Messiah, Park, Segre)

Thanks for your patience,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
HeavyWater said:
What is a simple example (if there is one) of mixing? What do I start with? What do I end with?
A simple example: you start with ##D^0## and end with ##\overline {D^0}##.
A particle transforms into its own antiparticle. That is the basic idea.
 
mfb said:
A simple example: you start with ##D^0## and end with ##\overline {D^0}##.
A particle transforms into its own antiparticle. That is the basic idea.
I would not say that this is the basic idea with mixing, there is no requirement that the mixing occurs between particle and anti-particle. Instead, the point is that you have particles with the same quantum numbers, resulting in the possibility that the mass basis and the interaction basis are not simultaneously diagonalisable. Depending on the mass differences, this will lead to effects such as oscillations or interactions breaking flavor.
 
"Mixing" in the here given context is the phenomenon that the interaction Hamiltonian is not diagonal in the basis of mass eigenstates. That's the case for the quarks in the Standard Model. While in the strong interaction (QCD) the the interaction is diagonal in mass eigenstates, the weak interaction (QFD) is not, i.e., the weak-isospin (flavor) eigenstates defined through the coupling of the gauge fields to the currents (with the famous "V minus A" structure) are not the mass eigenstates of the quarks.

Now the weak interaction is treatable as a perturbative correction of the strong interaction, and thus the weak interaction is "flavor changing" from the point of view of the strong interactions.

This manifests itself also in the CP-violating transitions between the particle-antiparticle states of the neutral pseudoscalars. It was first discovered in the ##\mathrm{K}_0 \bar{\mathrm{K}}_0## system (Nobel prize for Cronin and Fitch 1964).

In the neutrino sector it's the only clear manifestation of physics beyond the Standard Model (Nobel prize 2015 for Kajita and McDonald/(Super)Kamiokande+SNO).
 
Orodruin said:
I would not say that this is the basic idea with mixing, there is no requirement that the mixing occurs between particle and anti-particle. Instead, the point is that you have particles with the same quantum numbers, resulting in the possibility that the mass basis and the interaction basis are not simultaneously diagonalisable. Depending on the mass differences, this will lead to effects such as oscillations or interactions breaking flavor.
Hmm right, and for neutrinos it is not mixing to antiparticles. The CKM matrix and D0 were mentioned, so I was thinking about hadrons only, where all the mixing happens between particle/antiparticle pairs.
 
First, "thank you" to each of you: mfb, Orodruin, and Vanhees71.

"mfb"--I've been waiting for an answer like yours all my life (which sounds something like what Woody Allen said in "Play It Again Sam"). Your response hit a few chords and got me moving. Yes, I can see where its about a particle transforming into its anti particle. You got me thinking and I went back and looked up my Feynman lectures where he talks about the K-zero and K-zero-bar. You got my enthusiasm and curiosity moving.

Orodruin; your mention of phrases like mass basis, interaction basis, and "same quantum numbers" all make more sense now.

Vanhees71; your comments about mass eigenstates and diagonalization of the Hamiltonian make a lot more sense--but I clearly have some learning to do too.

Thanks to all 3 of you.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mfb

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 207 ·
7
Replies
207
Views
15K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K