Why is the top quark so massive?

  • Thread starter NEOclassic
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Quark
In summary: I think...The energy equivalence of the mass of a proton is 938.27 MeV;that of a top quark is published as being 173800 MeV. I thought that quarks were contained within nucleons and anti-nucleons.Can anyone explain this phenomenon? Cheers, Jim
  • #1
163
0
The energy equivalence of the mass of a proton is 938.27 MeV;
that of a top quark is published as being 173800 MeV.
I thought that quarks were contained within nucleons and anti-nucleons.
Can anyone explain this phenomenon? Cheers, Jim
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Nope.According to Heisenberg-Ivanenko hypothesis (confirmed experimentally),the only nucleons are the protons & neutrons.It was then the quark model that told us that these nucleons were made up of 3 quarks each,but only 2 flavors in total...So judging by your own belief,we should have only 2 flavors of quarks (and the corresponding antiquarks),but in fact we have discovered 6 and have a theory that allows 16 possible...

I'll wait for the master in chromodynamics Marlon would care to explain why the top quark is so massive and why discovering of a 7-th flavor of quarks would require higher (maybe ~TeV) energies...

Daniel.
 
  • #3
The top quark is not in the nucleon. It is a constituent of much heavier particles.
Explanation of the masses of all the quarks and leptons is so far unexplained in the Standard Model.
lt is unlikely that more than six quarks will be found. It is known that there are only three neutrinos (lighter than M(Z_0/2)), and thus only six leptons. The number of quarks and leptons should be equal for several theoretical reasons.
 
  • #4
There are no top quarks in a proton. A proton is made of two up quarks and a down quark.
 
  • #5
NEOclassic said:
The energy equivalence of the mass of a proton is 938.27 MeV;
that of a top quark is published as being 173800 MeV.
I thought that quarks were contained within nucleons and anti-nucleons.
Can anyone explain this phenomenon? Cheers, Jim

Why is the top quark so massive ? Well, that's a good question but actually we don't have an uniform and widely accepted answer. At least not to my knowledge. Check out :
http://www-ed.fnal.gov/talks/fermilab1994/web/top_special.html

The clue really is (well one possible way out i mean) to study the coupling of a top quark to all of the gauge bosons. I mean, we study the interaction of a top quark with for example W bosons (ie weak interaction).The coupling of the top quark to the W is particularly interesting because it induces essentially all decays of the top quark. This decay is in principle an ordinary V-A decay like, for example, muon decay. The main difference is that the top quark is so heavy that the W is produced on-shell, i.e. as a real particle. This has a number of consequences for the kinematics of the decay, distributions of decay products etc.

Firther reading here : http://wwwth.mppmu.mpg.de/webdocs/eng/top/topulaer.html

Besides, the fact that the hadron mass is BIGGER then the sum of the constituent quarks already has been discussed on this forum. Check out : https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=66384

regards
marlon
 
  • #6
Marlon,he's right.A proton is a 3-quark barion made up of 2 quarks UP and one quark DOWN.

Daniel.

EDIT:Wow,u deleted the post... :tongue2: :biggrin:
 
  • #7
dextercioby said:
Marlon,he's right.A proton is a 3-quark barion made up of 2 quarks UP and one quark DOWN.

Daniel.

EDIT:Wow,u deleted the post... :tongue2: :biggrin:

yeah, i misread that post...My mistake...i deleted my remark

marlon
ps : I am readinf stuff on the top quark mass being linked to the Higgs boson mass, though i don't exactly now what that actual link is ? The Higgs boson must be heavier then this top quark, other wise when must have already observed it
 
Last edited:
  • #8
NEOclassic said:
The energy equivalence of the mass of a proton is 938.27 MeV;
that of a top quark is published as being 173800 MeV.
I thought that quarks were contained within nucleons and anti-nucleons.
Can anyone explain this phenomenon? Cheers, Jim

I am inclined to a belief that the experimental set-up, is where the resulting difference appears from. The fact that the increase in acceleration of particles (higher energies) will yeild incorrect "momentum" data, because of the interaction times?

As an example, if one was to bring two opposing matters (Proton and Anti-Proton) together at a low velocity, instead of the high accelerated particle "smashers", then the yeild product of proton to anti-protons, should define the proton mass, equivilent to that of the anti-proton, without the high-output "momentum" products being observable?

There is also evidence that 'low-momentum' interactions produce truer values to ElectroMagnetic and Charge products, resulting from a Phase-Shift(which can be viewed as a 'Momentum-Shift' in some models) of Quark and Anti-Quark scattering without Proton Decay.

The early thoughts have been developed from this:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jcv/imb/imb.html

to more recent:http://hep.bu.edu/~superk/pdk.html

and of course the final recent experiments have concluded that the Penta-Quark does not exist!
:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3034754.stm

Nature or us?..have been firing Blanks :blushing:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7287
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Okay Gentlepeople,
If the top-quark is not a constiuent of a nucleon, what the heck is it doing in QM besides confusing a lot of would be physicists?
Perhaps you folks can extend your "thought experiments" to explain why the Einstein equivalence of the "c"- quark of 1400 Mev, or that of the "b"-quark of 4400 MeV, or of the 4th generation "b'"-quark of 128000 Mev.
Isn't it possible that these apparent SR mass enhancements are hiding the true rest mass of these "free quarks"? Cheers, Jim
 
  • #10
To Marlon: The Higgs mass depends on the Top mass because of radiative corrections. Since the Higgs couplings are proportional to mass the effect of top loops is enourmous and completely swamps any contributions from all the other fermions.
 
  • #11
NEOclassic said:
Okay Gentlepeople,
If the top-quark is not a constiuent of a nucleon, what the heck is it doing in QM besides confusing a lot of would be physicists?

Neo, your remark goes down to Isaac Rabi, who asked "Who ordered that?" when the muon was confirmed. We do not know why the heck do we need any of the two upper generations, this is muon, tau, charm, strange, bottom and top. Besides, the masses of these particles have a puzzling distribution.
 
  • #12
The joy of string theory and its cousins is that if you look at a standard model table of fundamental particles it really looks like there should be some sort of simple theory that should explain the relationship between the numbers but no one has found it.

The very name "Standard Model" shows the ambivalence the field itself has about it. I strongly suspect that most physicists really believe that there is a deeper structure of some kind.
 
  • #13
When a proton emits an electron it becomes a nuetron. This seems to imply that an up quark is the equivalent of a down quark plus an electron. I assume that that this also implies that the mass of a proton is greater than that of a nuetron. Is it possible that a nuecleon can contain three up quarks or would it immediately self destruct? From the nature of the foregoing you can probably tell I am atomically naive.
 
  • #14
rowan said:
When a proton emits an electron it becomes a nuetron. This seems to imply that an up quark is the equivalent of a down quark plus an electron. I assume that that this also implies that the mass of a proton is greater than that of a nuetron. Is it possible that a nuecleon can contain three up quarks or would it immediately self destruct? From the nature of the foregoing you can probably tell I am atomically naive.

Got your facts mixed up man.

http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/npe.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
rowan said:
When a proton emits an electron it becomes a nuetron. This seems to imply that an up quark is the equivalent of a down quark plus an electron. I assume that that this also implies that the mass of a proton is greater than that of a nuetron. Is it possible that a nuecleon can contain three up quarks or would it immediately self destruct? From the nature of the foregoing you can probably tell I am atomically naive.

Impossible.Check the conservation of ELECTRIC charge,which is really fundamental even in GUT and SUSY extensions.

Daniel.
 
  • #16
Hi rowan, and welcome to physicsforums!

Perhaps you're thinking of neutron beta-decay, in which a neutron emits an electron to become a proton? (Although there's an antineutrino involved as well, and I don't know if "emit" is really the right word).

This process has what looks like a nice explanation at http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/npe.html, a wonderful resource for all would-be nuclear physicists:
"One of the the down quarks is transformed into an up quark. Since the down quark has a charge of -1/3 and and the up quark has a charge of 2/3, it follows that this process is mediated by a virtual W- particle, which carries away a (-1) charge."

"An electron and antineutrino emerge from the virtual W- boson."

Don't ask me to explain how any of this happens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
The net charge of a free neutron is = ZERO.
That of the products of the reaction are a neg. 1eV of the electron and a plus 1 eV of the proton, so that the net charge of the resultants is also = ZERO. Therefore, the charge is, in fact, conserved. Perhaps it is the GUT and the SUSY that have misinformed us QM folks. Its just a thought - don't you think? Cheers, Jim
PS The ejected electron always carries off 0.782 MeV of exothermic energy that proves, quite adequately, the spontaneity of the reaction.
 
  • #18
NEOclassic said:
The net charge of a free neutron is = ZERO.
That of the products of the reaction are a neg. 1eV of the electron and a plus 1 eV of the proton, so that the net charge of the resultants is also = ZERO. Therefore, the charge is, in fact, conserved. Perhaps it is the GUT and the SUSY that have misinformed us QM folks. Its just a thought - don't you think? Cheers, Jim
PS The ejected electron always carries off 0.782 MeV of exothermic energy that proves, quite adequately, the spontaneity of the reaction.

What the heck are you talking about? The beta decay of a neutron is a 3-body decay, and thus the proton and electron do NOT have monochromatic energies. It wouldn't be 1eV anyhow.

That is why the neutrino was postulated. Because experiments did not show a monchromatic energy spectrum.

http://www.free-definition.com/Beta-decay.html
 
  • #19
Miserable said:
To Marlon: The Higgs mass depends on the Top mass because of radiative corrections. Since the Higgs couplings are proportional to mass the effect of top loops is enourmous and completely swamps any contributions from all the other fermions.

Yea I never quite understood this line of reason. Someone refresh my memory.

1) There is plenty of finetuning already in the Standard Model, it wouldn't be drastic if there was even more (High Higgs mass = lots of finetuning). The Higgs mass is unprotected by any classical symmetry, ergo we're in trouble a fortiori.

2) Extensions of the Standard model could output GUT or SUSY scale particles that could in principle swamp the top quarks radiative corrections, so why aren't we talking about the Higgs mass relative to them?

I wish I knew a little more about the Higgs sector, its still a bit of a blackbox in my knowledge of physics beyond classical field theory.
 
  • #20
Haelfix said:
Yea I never quite understood this line of reason. Someone refresh my memory.

1) There is plenty of finetuning already in the Standard Model, it wouldn't be drastic if there was even more (High Higgs mass = lots of finetuning).

Is there? There are lots of free parameters which are chosen to fit experiments, but they aren't fine tuned- changing the electron mass slightly would change lots of other parameters due to quantum effects, but it won't have any drastic effects on the structure of the theory. A Higgs mass >1Tev spoils unitarity, for example, so its value would require fine tuning if there is no other mechanism to keep it under control.

The Higgs mass is unprotected by any classical symmetry, ergo we're in trouble a fortiori.

Which is one reason a lot of theorists don't like the minimal SM Higgs.

2) Extensions of the Standard model could output GUT or SUSY scale particles that could in principle swamp the top quarks radiative corrections, so why aren't we talking about the Higgs mass relative to them?

I was only referring to the SM. You're right, when calculating quantum corrections in SUSY you have to include stop loops as well.
 
  • #21
Well you are right, other than the smallness of the neutrino mass relative to the electron mass (it acquires a Higgs Vev at electroweak symmetry breaking scales, so naturally you would want the ratio to be of order ~ 1) I can think of no other unnatural finetuning in the minimal standard model.

I am interested however in why it breaks unitarity bounds (partial wave unitarity I take it) at >1tev. I have never seen that calculation done before.
 
  • #22
There are no neutrino masses to fine-tune in the SM, technically... ;) But yes, neutrino masses need fine-tuning too. Let's hear it for the See-Saw mechanism!

I'd never actually seen the unitarity calculation myself until your post inspired me to look! You're right, it's a partial wave analysis. This paper gives a pretty good exposition.

http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/p678
 

1. Why is the top quark the most massive elementary particle?

The top quark is the most massive elementary particle because it has the largest mass among all other particles in the Standard Model. Its mass is approximately 173 GeV/c^2, which is about 35,000 times the mass of a proton. This is due to the fact that the top quark interacts with the Higgs field more strongly than any other particle, resulting in a larger mass.

2. How does the mass of the top quark affect other particles and their interactions?

The mass of the top quark plays a crucial role in the stability of the Higgs boson and the strength of the electroweak force. The top quark's large mass also affects the masses of other particles, such as the bottom quark and the W and Z bosons. It also affects the way these particles interact with each other, leading to important predictions about the behavior of the universe at the smallest scales.

3. What experimental evidence supports the high mass of the top quark?

The top quark's mass has been measured by multiple experiments, including the Tevatron at Fermilab and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. These experiments have confirmed the top quark's mass through various methods, such as studying its decay products and measuring its production rate. Additionally, the predictions made by the Standard Model, which includes the high mass of the top quark, have been consistently confirmed by experimental results.

4. Are there any theories that explain why the top quark is so massive?

There are several theories that attempt to explain the mass of the top quark. One of the most widely accepted is the Higgs mechanism, which proposes that particles acquire mass through interactions with the Higgs field. Another theory, known as the top quark condensation model, suggests that the top quark's mass is generated through interactions with a hypothetical particle called the top-Higgs boson. However, these theories are still being studied and refined.

5. What impact does the top quark's mass have on our understanding of the universe?

The top quark's mass is an important puzzle piece in our understanding of the universe. It is a key parameter in the Standard Model, which is the most successful theory we have for explaining the fundamental particles and forces in our universe. By studying the top quark's mass and its interactions, we can gain insights into the structure of matter and the origins of the universe. It also helps to guide future research and experiments in particle physics.

Suggested for: Why is the top quark so massive?

Back
Top