Why isnt there a up,up anti-down baryon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bobhawke
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Baryon
Bobhawke
Messages
142
Reaction score
0
There doesn't seem to be anything in the theory of the standard model that says such a baryon couldn't exist, so why don't we see it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bobhawke said:
There doesn't seem to be anything in the theory of the standard model that says such a baryon couldn't exist

Yes there is. It's colored.
 
ok I feel stupid now.

Im going to go hit myself in the forehead
 
however, you're certainly right that QCD does not forbid many baryonic-like states (such as the pentaquark) that we (debatably) do not see. Why is that? Who knows...
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top