Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Why don't ups and downs annihilate in nucleons?

  1. May 4, 2005 #1
    Answer me that! Because they should, shouldn't they? Strong attractive forces, attractive EM forces... you'd think nothing would separate them.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 4, 2005 #2

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Up and down quarks are not each others' anti-particles. Up and anti-up, and down and anti-down, are anti-particles.

    - Warren
     
  4. May 4, 2005 #3

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I think your question would have been much more interesting,if u had asked it refering to the [itex] \pi^{0} [/itex] meson...

    Daniel.
     
  5. May 4, 2005 #4
    Hi Warren! Quark-antiquark pairs do annihilate, but what keeps an up from a down (annihilate was a bad word) in a nucleon. They have not one (strong) but TWO (EM) attractive forces between them and yet... never the twain shall meet. What's going on guys?
     
  6. May 4, 2005 #5

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Dexter's suggestion of studying the pi-zero is a very good one. Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't one of the decay modes of the pi-zero annhiliation?

    - Warren
     
  7. May 4, 2005 #6

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    According to [1],there are a lotta decay modes for [itex]\pi^{0}[/itex],but the most probable by far is

    [tex] \pi^{0}\rightarrow 2\gamma [/tex] [itex] (98.798\pm 0.032) [/itex]%

    ,but other decay modes include

    [tex] \pi^{0}\rightarrow e^{+}+e^{-}+\gamma [/tex]

    [tex] \pi^{0}\rightarrow \gamma+\mbox{positronium} [/tex]

    [tex] \pi^{0}\rightarrow e^{+}+e^{+}+e^{-}+e^{-} [/tex]

    and so on...So it's not an annihilation,but a decay...:wink:

    Daniel.

    ----------------------------------------------------------
    [1]PDG,"Particle Physics Booklet",July 2004,page 28.
     
  8. May 4, 2005 #7
    Jesus. Physicists have the attention span of a- Oh, there's a girl joining the forum, look! I jest... tell me about the meson pie, but if that doesn't answer it and anyone does have any nucleon-based thoughts, chuck them my way too. Does it have anything to do with quantum states? I hate those...
     
  9. May 4, 2005 #8

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Okay, so the pi-zero does indeed annhiliate, and nearly all the time.

    So, on to El Hombre's real question: what keeps quarks apart in the nucleon? The Pauli exclusion principle, I presume.

    - Warren
     
  10. May 4, 2005 #9
    The strong force becomes very weak at short distances.

    Charged pions can decay weakly, annihilating to a W which becomes an electron or muon + corresponding anti-neutrino.

    No mechanism for a u and anti-d pair (or charge conjugate) to decay via EM.

    Keep in the mind that baryon number needs to be conserved.
     
  11. May 4, 2005 #10
    So the Pauli (wasn't he in Rocky?) exclusion principal allows a particle-antiparticle pair to occupy the same space, but not two particles? I mean... is nature really going: "Right, I need to get this up and this down in the same place, so- argh no, I can't. It's the Pauli exclusion principal!!!" Is there some physical reason backing this up or is just a convenient fudge?
     
  12. May 4, 2005 #11
    Burt Young (from Rocky) indeed fomulated the Pauli Exclusion Principle. :smile:

    What goes on inside a hadron is pretty complex, and I don't think there is any physicist who has a real good understanding of what's going on.

    But anyhow - just because you have attractive charges does not mean that things collapse into each other. Look at the hydrogen atom (proton + electron). You can have bound states due to quantum mechanics.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2005
  13. May 4, 2005 #12

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

  14. May 4, 2005 #13
    I'll... come back when I've learned a thing or two about Schroedinger. About 6 years I think.
     
  15. May 4, 2005 #14

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    A really key subject is group theory...Essential for particle physics.

    Daniel.
     
  16. May 4, 2005 #15
    [itex]\pi^{0}[/itex],but the most probable by far is
    [tex] \pi^{0}\rightarrow 2\gamma [/tex] [itex] (98.798\pm 0.032) [/itex]%
    [tex] \pi^{0}\rightarrow e^{+}+e^{-}+\gamma [/tex]
    [tex] \pi^{0}\rightarrow \gamma+\mbox{positronium} [/tex]
    [tex] \pi^{0}\rightarrow e^{+}+e^{+}+e^{-}+e^{-} [/tex]

    these can all be taken as annihilation, because imagine u and [tex]\bar{u}[/tex] collide, what will be produced? we can work out the ratio, and find the
    IR-safe cross section ratio is nearly the same value.
     
  17. May 5, 2005 #16
    Well, my next question was going to be: why should the Pauli exclusion principal apply (as opposed to why do we need it to apply)? Why is it that an electron and positron, or quark and corresponding antiquark, or two photons can meet but not an up and a down, or an electron and a nucleus? In the former, the energies of each particle are equal and their charges add to zero, while in the latter either the masses or charges or both are different. If two particles of equal energy and opposite but unequal charge were combined, charge would not be conserved. Does this make a difference?
     
  18. May 5, 2005 #17
    El Hombre,

    the main thing is all energy eigenstates (and since *all* states are given by linear combinations of these eigenstates, we can get *all* the possible states) are given by the solution of the time-independent Schrodinger equation. The solution of this equation will show that even the lowest energy state corresponds to both particles existing without them "hitting" each other.
     
  19. May 5, 2005 #18

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Actually the Pauli exclusion principle (more general,the symmetrization principle) cannot apply,because the particles involved in the nucleon are not identical...

    Daniel.
     
  20. May 5, 2005 #19
    Good point, Daniel. The exclusion principal cannot stop an up and a down cohabiting a point in spacetime. But it can prohibit two ups. Why? Physically, I mean. Has anyone come up with a physical theory for the exclusion principal.

    Hi masudr - like I said... I need to learn a thing or two about Schroedinger. But again... why? Some guy with crazy hair cannot be the reason why matter does not collapse in on itself. I mean, if you placed a proton near to an electron with both at rest, because they are free particles they would (would they not) form a neutron. What is it about atomic electrons that overcomes the EM attraction? Where does a quantum state come from?
     
  21. May 5, 2005 #20

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Nope,for now,there's no theory whose consequences would include the 6 axioms of nonrelativistic QM,symmetrization principle (sic!) included...

    Nope,most certainly not.Depending on the energy of the incoming electron,the scattering of an electron off a proton can be very different;at high energies,the electron would penetrate the proton & would scatter off the 3 quarks.

    The principles of quantum mechanics give the answer to why the hydrogen atom doesn't collapse under coulombian attraction between the electron & the proton.

    Daniel.

    P.S.Are u a girl?(reference to an earlier post)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Why don't ups and downs annihilate in nucleons?
  1. Spin up and spin down (Replies: 9)

  2. Spin up/down issue (Replies: 15)

  3. Why don't objects blend? (Replies: 10)

Loading...