Why Do No Stable Mesons Exist?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jc09
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mesons Stable
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of why no stable mesons exist, exploring theoretical aspects related to their mass, decay channels, and the role of symmetries in particle physics. Participants engage in a technical examination of meson stability, particularly focusing on pions and their interactions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that mesons decay into leptons due to their mass and zero baryon number.
  • One participant proposes that if the pion had the same mass as the muon, it could be stable, indicating that mass and baryon number are not the only factors, as spin also plays a role.
  • Another viewpoint is that light pseudo-scalar mesons can be understood as Goldstone bosons from chiral symmetry breaking, which implies they should be stable and massless, although this is complicated by the approximate nature of chiral symmetry due to small quark masses.
  • There is a discussion about the eta-prime meson, which does not follow the same stability arguments due to its mass and the nature of the axial U(1) symmetry breaking.
  • Participants debate the decay channels of pions, particularly the \(\pi \rightarrow e\nu\) and \(\pi \rightarrow \mu\nu\) channels, with some arguing that these channels are suppressed under certain mass conditions.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the comparative rates of decay into electrons versus muons when the masses of pions and muons are equal, acknowledging the complexity of the situation.
  • There is a claim that muonic decays can be kinematically forbidden due to non-zero neutrino mass, further complicating the discussion on meson stability.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the factors influencing meson stability, particularly concerning the roles of mass, decay channels, and symmetry. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on the primary reasons for the lack of stable mesons.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the relationships between particle masses and decay channels, as well as the implications of symmetry breaking, which are not fully resolved. The complexity of decay processes and the influence of various factors on stability are acknowledged but not definitively concluded.

jc09
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
So mesons consist of two quark. I am wondering why no stable mesons exist?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because they're more massive than leptons and have zero baryon number, they can decay into leptons.
 
Note that if the pion had the same mass that the muon, it should be stable at first order, even if the electron is massive. So mass and baryon number is not all the history, spin has a role too.
 
Light pseudo-scalar mesons (pions, ...) can be understood as Godstone bosons generated by chiral symmetry breaking and should therefore be both stable and massless. But chiral symmetry is only an approximate symmetry b/c of small quark masses; therefore mesons are only approximately massless and approximately stable.

This does not apply to the singlet eta-prime b/c the axial U(1) symmetry is not broken spontaneously via the Goldstone mechanism but via the axial anomaly (the eta-prime is quite heavy compared to the other light mesons).

And it does not apply to heavier mesons, e.g. the vectors mesons (rho, ...)
 
YES Tom, it is amazing! The pion has two independent arguments to be stable, one coming from QCD via chiral symmetry breaking, and another coming from electroweak decay via the conspiracy of masses of electron, muon and pion.
 
arivero said:
Note that if the pion had the same mass that the muon, it should be stable at first order, even if the electron is massive. So mass and baryon number is not all the history, spin has a role too.

I don't see how you conclude this. The \pi \rightarrow e\nu channel may be suppressed by the necessary electron mass insertion; but, it is non-zero at tree level, independent of the relationship between the pion and muon masses.
 
Parlyne said:
I don't see how you conclude this. The \pi \rightarrow e\nu channel may be suppressed by the necessary electron mass insertion; but, it is non-zero at tree level, independent of the relationship between the pion and muon masses.

Indeed I said it badly; what I was thinking is that both channels, muon and pion, are strongly suppressed, that tree level into muon becomes zero if the mass of the muon is equal to the mass of the pion, and that tree level into electron becomes zero if the mass of the electron is set to zero. Is that right?

(Actually, when m_pi=m_mu, and keeping m_e at the current value, I am not sure what is greater, if the tree level into electron or the loop corrections into muon... but I ack it is not an excuse for sloopy wording)

Still, I stand amazed by the near-stability of pion, either pi- or pi0
 
Last edited:
arivero said:
(Actually, when m_pi=m_mu, and keeping m_e at the current value, I am not sure what is greater, if the tree level into electron or the loop corrections into muon...

Tree into electron. There is zero phase space for muonic decays in your example.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Tree into electron. There is zero phase space for muonic decays in your example.
:smile:
 
  • #10
Vanadium 50 said:
Tree into electron. There is zero phase space for muonic decays in your example.

Worse. It's kinematically forbidden because of non-zero neutrino mass.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
10K