What is the reason for the specific number of quarks in baryons and fermions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Schrodinger's Dog
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Numbers Quark
Schrodinger's Dog
Messages
835
Reaction score
7
You'll have to excuse my ignorance I am fairly new to physics, having only the sort of predegree level of maths knowledge and a few ideas.

How do we come to the conclusion that baryons have 3 quarks and fermions have 2? Is there a mathematical reason for this? I assume this is proven or bourne out by experimental data too? I just remember reading that these fundamental particles come in these pairings and can see why it works as regards charge and spin but I could just as easily say there are 6 quarks or 12? Or I could say there are an infinite number of quasi quarks or they don't exist or whatever?

So obviously my preposterous other theories are false, how do we maintain the ideas that there are up down down, is it something to do with the weak force? Or is there something more fundamental that leads us to this conclusion.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Schrodinger's Dog said:
How do we come to the conclusion that baryons have 3 quarks and fermions have 2?

You mean mesons, not fermions.

Is there a mathematical reason for this? I assume this is proven or bourne out by experimental data too?

These particular combinations were originally proposed because they can explain the way that the various baryons and mesons can be classified according to their properties. This is rather similar to the way that QM's description of the atom can explain the way that the various elements can be classified according to their properties in the periodic table.

We also have more direct evidence for quarks in that particles scatter off each other in high-energy collisions in ways that we can explain (as far as we know) only by assuming they are made up of more fundamental particles that actually perform the scattering. This is rather similar to the way that Rutherford scattered alpha particles off of atoms and used the results to deduce that an atom must have a small, massive nucleus.

To measure the behavior of individual quarks in a baryon or meson, we often use leptons (neutrinos, electrons or muons) as our scattering "probes", because they are themselves fundamental pointlike particles, as far as we know. When I was a graduate student long ago, I worked on a neutrino-scattering experiment which (among other things) studied the quark structure functions of protons and neutrons, i.e. the functions which describe the probability that each quark carries a certain amount of the proton's/neutron's momentum in a collision.

So far, only two- and three-quark combinations fit experimental data, except perhaps for recent data that seem to indicate the existence of five-quark combinations ("pentaquarks"). I don't know what the status of that data is now.
 
Last edited:
Sorry yes, just reading something about fermions and made a slip.

Thanks good answer, very clear.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Why is there such a difference between the total cross-section data? (simulation vs. experiment)'
Well, I'm simulating a neutron-proton scattering phase shift. The equation that I solve numerically is the Phase function method and is $$ \frac{d}{dr}[\delta_{i+1}] = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\frac{V(r)}{k^2}\sin(kr + \delta_i)$$ ##\delta_i## is the phase shift for triplet and singlet state, ##\mu## is the reduced mass for neutron-proton, ##k=\sqrt{2\mu E_{cm}/\hbar^2}## is the wave number and ##V(r)## is the potential of interaction like Yukawa, Wood-Saxon, Square well potential, etc. I first...
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...

Similar threads

Back
Top