Why Are There No Neutral Quarks in Particle Physics?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter edpell
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Neutral Quarks
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the absence of neutral quarks in particle physics, exploring theoretical implications, the structure of the Standard Model, and the nature of particle interactions. Participants examine the characteristics of quarks and leptons, gauge symmetries, and the potential existence of hypothetical particles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the Standard Model does not require neutral quarks to describe observed phenomena.
  • There is a suggestion that if neutral quarks existed, they would need to have specific properties and interactions similar to other quarks.
  • One participant emphasizes the distinction between electric charge and color charge in the context of quarks and leptons.
  • Some argue that a particle that is both color and electric neutral would not fit the definition of a quark.
  • Participants discuss the gauge symmetry group of the Standard Model and its implications for the existence of particles, including the concept of anomaly cancellations.
  • There are references to the possible connections between the gauge groups and the fundamental symmetries of the universe.
  • One participant raises the idea that a hypothetical neutral quark might behave like a neutrino, questioning the classification of such a particle.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the absence of neutral quarks is a feature of the Standard Model, but multiple competing views remain regarding the implications and reasons for this absence. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the nature of potential neutral quarks or their interactions.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the relationships between gauge groups and the constraints imposed by anomaly cancellations within the Standard Model. The discussion remains open-ended regarding the fundamental reasons for the observed particle symmetries.

edpell
Messages
282
Reaction score
4
For leptons we have charged leptons electron, muon, tau and uncharged leptons electron neutrino, muon nutrino, tau neutrino. For quarks we have charged quarks pairs down, up and strange, charm and truth, beauty. But we have no neutral quarks. Why?

The force carrying particle for the charged particles in each case is massless. The force carrying particle for the neutral leptons is massive. By analogy why is there no massive boson triplet to couple with the neutral quarks?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If you like you could work out what the particle possibilities are if there were neutral quarks and see what their properties would have to be. The basic reason there are no neutral quarks in the standard model is that there are no particles that require them. You understand why we have a quark model to start with right?

Though I think you may need to distinguish electric charge from color charge.
(JIC: the third quark pair you are looking for is possibly top/bottom rather than truth/beauty)

The only uncharged leptons are neutrinos.
All leptons feel the weak nuclear interaction.
Presumably any hypothetical neutral quarks would have the same characteristic interactions as the other quarks. You are thinking that gluons are to quarks what photons are to leptons?
 
edpell said:
But we have no neutral quarks. Why?
Nobody knows.

The gauge symmetry group of the SM is SU(3)color * [U(1)*SU(2)]el.-weak where color is described by the 1st factor and electro-weak charges (especially the electric charge) is described by the 2nd factor. Nobody knows whether there is a relation between these two gauge groups, why they are there, why exactly this group structure, why three generations etc.

These are question to be answered by GUTs, a ToE or something like that
 
Simon, yes I am thinking gluons are to quarks as photons are to charged leptons.

When I say neutral quark I mean both color neutral and electric charge neutral.
 
Like tom said - "we don't know" is the bottom line here.
We don't have neutral quarks in our model because we don't need them to describe anything that we have seen yet.

A quark that is both color and electric neutral would not be a quark. Imagine a lepton that feels neither weak nor EM interactions ... it wouldn't be a lepton right?

You are thinking of something with a quark-like rest-mass which feels only a force mediated by an hitherto unsuspected heavy baryon (and gravity?). Well, that's pretty wide open then... you may as well ask why there are the particles that there are.

(Hmmm ... would the Higgs boson fit that description I wonder?)
 
edpell said:
When I say neutral quark I mean both color neutral and electric charge neutral.
A spin-1/2 uncharged both for electric and color interaction would very much behave like a neutrino. Why would you call it "quark" if it does not feel the color interaction ?

There are within the standard model itself constraint between the electric charges of all fermions. They are not completely arbitrary. Those constraints are called "anomaly cancellations".
 
humanino said:
Those constraints are called "anomaly cancellations".

http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/theory/academiclectures/sm06_four.pdf
 
Tom thanks for the reference.
 
Also at http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/theory/academiclectures/ is http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/theory/academiclectures/bs06_one.pdf, PDF pages 77 - 81, especially page 80.

Anomalies are (sum over left-handed elementary fermions) - (same for right-handed ones) of Tr(Ta.{Tb,Tc})
where the T's are gauge-group generators.

The Standard Model's symmetry is SU(3) * SU(2) * U(1) -- QCD * (weak isospin) * (weak hypercharge)

Weak hypercharge Y: average electric charge of a multiplet:
each member's charge Q = (weak isospin)3 + Y

Some of the anomalies cancel as a result of gauge-group structure: SU(3)2*SU(2), SU(3)*SU(2)2, SU(2)3, SU(3)*SU(2)*U(1), SU(3)*U(1)2, SU(2)*U(1)2, (gravity)2*SU(3), (gravity)2*SU(2), and apparently (gravity)*(nongravitational)(2) and (gravity)3

This leaves SU(3)3, SU(3)2*U(1), SU(2)2*U(1), U(1)3, and (gravity)2*U(1). They mean:


All these must add up to zero, taking (sum of left-handed multiplet members) - (likewise for right-handed ones):
  1. Quarks 1, leptons 0
  2. Quark (hyper)charge
  3. Weak-isospin doublet (hyper)charge
  4. (hypercharge)3 value
  5. (hyper)charge
The first one is (number of left-handed quarks) = (number of right-handed quarks)


Let's work it out for the Standard Model. It has a left-handed weak-isospin doublet of quarks and one for leptons, with all the right-handed ones being weak-isospin singlets.

Anomaly #1: 1 quark doublet, 2 quark singlets. Check.
Anomaly #2: 6Y(QL) = sum of 3Y(QR's)
Anomaly #3: 6Y(QL) + 2Y(LL) = 0
Anomaly #4: 6Y(QL)3 + 2Y(LL)3 = sum of 3Y(QR's)3 + sum of Y(LR's)3
Anomaly #5: 6Y(QL) + 2Y(LL) = sum of 3Y(QR's) + sum of Y(LR's)

Let's see how much we can constrain the hypercharge values. Let Y(LL) = -1/2 for definiteness, as in the Standard Model. Then Y(QL) = 1/6, check, though Y(QR's) and the Y(LR's) are more difficult.

From #2, Y(QR1) + Y(QR2) = 1/3
From #2 and #5, sum of Y(LR's) = -1
From #4, -2/9 = 3Y(QR1)3 + 3Y(QR2)3 + sum of Y(LR's)3

This is still a little ambiguous, so let us suppose that only one right-handed lepton has a nonzero hypercharge. Then Y(LR) = -1. Check.

Y(QR1) + Y(QR2) = 1/3
Y(QR1)3 + Y(QR2)3 = 7/27
with solution Y(QR1) = 2/3 and Y(QR2) = -1/3. Check.

So anomaly cancellation forces Y(QL) = 1/6, Y(LL) = -1/3, Y(QR1) = 2/3, Y(QR2) = -1/3, Y(LR) = -1 to within a multiplicative factor.


Electrically-neutral quarks? They'd have to be added on to the Standard Model.
 
  • #10
Though all this basically rewrites the question to "why does the Universe show this kind of symmetry?" ... come to think of it, this is the sort of thing someone has probably pondered along the lines of "What kinds of symmetries could produce Universes with physicists to ponder what kind of...(repeats)?"

A bit like how come we see 3+1 dimensions.
 
  • #11
humanino said:
A spin-1/2 uncharged both for electric and color interaction would very much behave like a neutrino. Why would you call it "quark" if it does not feel the color interaction ?

Yep, it smeels a little bit as "lepton number as the fourth color". Moreover, one can separate the electric charge coming brom B-L and then neutrinos, (and leptons and quarks) are not so different.
 

Similar threads

Graduate What are the difficulties of the rishon model?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad New Lepton Universality Data To Be Announced Tuesday, 18 October 2021
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Eletrons muons tau in string theory
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Graduate Recent papers on particle masses
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Preon quark models excluded by LHC
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Graduate What is the significance of the Cabibbo Angle Anomaly in particle physics?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad The standard model from loop quantum gravity via spinors octonions
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
Undergrad A novel explanation of CKM and PMNS matrix parameters
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
High School Vibrating strings, quark strings more complicated?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Three generations of Fermions from octonions Clifford alegbras
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
10K