Why are there not up and down quantum numbers?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the absence of specific quantum numbers for up and down quarks, contrasting them with other quark flavors. Participants explore the implications of this absence on particles like the neutral pion and neutral kaon, examining concepts such as isospin and flavor symmetry.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about why there are no distinct quantum numbers for up and down quarks, unlike other quark flavors.
  • One participant explains that the neutral pion can be represented as either u \bar{u} or d \bar{d}, leading to it being its own antiparticle, while the neutral kaon, represented as d \bar{s}, has a different antiparticle.
  • Another participant suggests that upness or downness can be assigned as quantum numbers, relating this to an SU(N_f) flavor symmetry that is broken by quark masses.
  • A later reply points out that downness is less significant as a quantum number since electric charge already differentiates up and down quarks.
  • One participant corrects a previous post regarding the neutral pion's composition, indicating a possible typo.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of isospin as a more relevant term than up-ness or down-ness.
  • There is a debate about the neutral kaon's ability to be its own antiparticle, with one participant asserting that it cannot due to conservation laws in strong and weak interactions, while another suggests it can exist in a superposition that allows for this.
  • One participant elaborates on the mixing of neutral kaon eigenstates and their differing lifetimes, providing a detailed mathematical description of the effective Hamiltonian involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance of upness and downness as quantum numbers, with some favoring isospin as a more appropriate term. The discussion on the neutral kaon remains unresolved, with competing perspectives on whether it can be its own antiparticle.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about flavor symmetries and the implications of quark masses, which are not fully explored. The mathematical descriptions provided may depend on specific interpretations of particle interactions.

center o bass
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
Hi. I am a bit confused by the fact that there are quantum numbers related to every flavour of quark except the up and down. A consequence of this is that the neutral pion is it's own anti-particle while the neutral kaon is not. Why is this so?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A neutral pion is either u \bar{u} or d \bar{d}. In either case, the antiparticle gives the identical thing (remember, order isn't important!).

A neutral kaon, on the other hand, is d \bar{s}, whose antiparticle is \bar{d} s, clearly not the same thing.

A caveat is that you can have the kaon as a superposition, like \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( d \bar{s} \pm \bar{d} s \right), in which case it IS its own antiparticle.
 
Last edited:
You can assign either upness or downness as a quantum number. These flavor quantum numbers can be viewed as the remnants of an SU(N_f) flavor symmetry that would be present in the absence of quark masses. Maximally breaking this symmetry via quark masses leaves the U(1)^{N_f-1} symmetry associated to the flavors. Typically we choose the up quark to be neutral, with each other quark having charge one under a separate factor.

Edit: I should add that downness isn't such an interesting quantum number since the electric charge already distinguishes between the up and down quark (so no analogy of the neutral kaon as already pointed out.)
 
Last edited:
Nabeshin said:
A neutral pion is either u \bar{u} or b \bar{b}...
I assume the latter is a typo, and what you meant was d \bar{d}.
 
AdrianTheRock said:
I assume the latter is a typo, and what you meant was d \bar{d}.

ty :)
 
the reason is simple; you don't call it up-ness or down-ness but isospin
 
Nabeshin said:
A caveat is that you can have the kaon as a superposition, like \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( d \bar{s} \pm \bar{d} s \right), in which case it IS its own antiparticle.
You cannot have such superposition and the neutral Kaon can never be its own antiparticle! Because strong interaction conserves strangeness while the weak interaction does not, the neutral Kaon eigenstates with respect to these interactions are very different from each other; the strong-interaction eigenstates K_{0} \sim d \bar{s} and \bar{K}_{0} \sim s \bar{d} can MIX through weak transitions such as the one with two pions as intermediate state. In this K_{0}- \bar{K}_{0} mixing, the \bar{K}_{0} is the CP conjugate of K_{0},
|\bar{K}_{0}\rangle = CP|K_{0}\rangle .
The mixing can be described by “effective Hamiltonian” having two eigenstates with very different lifetimes,
K_{S} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1 + |\epsilon |^{2})}}\{ (K_{0} + \bar{K}_{0}) + \epsilon (K_{0} - \bar{K}_{0}) \}
K_{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1 + |\epsilon |^{2})}}\{ (K_{0} - \bar{K}_{0}) + \epsilon (K_{0} + \bar{K}_{0}) \}.

Sam
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K