A New Map of All the Particles and Forces (2020)
quantamagazine.org
quantamagazine.org
We know neutrinos have a mass, we don't know how much. We don't know how to incorporate the neutrino mass into standard model. Other fermions come in left-handed and right-handed forms but we only see left-handed neutrinos.
One idea is that right-handed neutrinos do exist but are highly elusive. In fact they are a good answer to the dark matter and other physics mysteries
Inside the free neutron, that's what happens, too. A down quark interacts with a W- to transform itself into an up quark; the neutron is now a proton, with the W- carrying away some of the mass and electric charge.
However, neutrons and protons are more complex than just quarks. They're also big bundles of gluons, exchanging colour charge amongst each other. These gluons have mass and you need energy to create them. They actually account for most of the mass of a neutron/proton. A bound neutron and proton are exchanging these gluons amongst each other, too.
Suppose you had a bound neutron and proton. If the neutron were to decay into a proton, the electric charge of the particles (now both +1) would cause them to repel; you can imagine either of two things might happen: the protons will now move apart _or_ they'll stick together. In the former, you need kinetic energy and in the latter, you're going to need more gluons to hold the whole thing together. Both of those cases requires more energy (==mass) than the neutron would "lose" by converting to a proton.
So, if you can imagine the potential energy landscape, the bound neutron is at a local minimum (lower than a free neutron)
Why can't the W-'s kinetic energy be smaller than whatever the neutron would lose by converting to a proton? There's no quantization preventing that here, right? My guess here is that it would not have (for the lack of a better term) sufficient "escape velocity", meaning that it would fall back into the neutron again, but wouldn't that imply (a) this is more like a dynamic equilibrium than a static one, where neutrons turn into protons and back into neutrons repeatedly, and (b) quantum uncertainty (Heisenberg, tunneling, etc.) should still mean that bound neutrons should still decay once in a while, and perhaps (c) a neutron next to a proton might randomly "swap" places once in a while if a W- from one gets pulled into the other one? (And if any of these is the case, then where do they draw the line to declare that a bound neutron is "stable"?)
> Why can't the W-'s kinetic energy be smaller...
That W- is a virtual particle - it can have any energy (according to some probability distribution) and you're correct that it doesn't _have_ to observe conservation of energy as long as that violation only happens for a very short period of time, which is precisely Heisenberg - there are other numbers it must conserve, such as electric charge.
> (b) quantum uncertainty (Heisenberg, tunneling, etc.) should still mean that bound neutrons should still decay once in a while
We do see this; this is what beta decay is.
> (c) a neutron next to a proton might randomly "swap" places once in a while
In general, this is correct. With limitations on what quantum numbers need to be conserved, these events are all constantly happening all the time. When writing out the equations for the system, you don't really have a term describing a proton and a term describing a neutron; you have a complicated mess of _all possible_ interactions and each elementary particle is described as a sort of "mix" of all the things it could be. So, in that sense, a bound neutron and proton is it's own thing - there's plenty of examples of these quasiparticles throughout physics and the definition of "stable" is quite application specific.
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9402115
and far far away more of them are being created and inflating, once you far enough way you are in something that looks like our universe, somewhere out there inflation is stopping and the big bang is happening there.
It's easy in my mind looking at the classical black hole picture and wondering what happens around the singularity to wonder if inflation gets re-started inside a black hole and maybe in that old picture where you can go into a rotating black hole and come out in the "asymptotically flat spacetime" it is a universe made by that mechanism.
Of course I think the classical black hole picture might be "not even wrong" and you might run into more than one firewall (such as the inflation zone) on the way there.
> We know neutrinos have a mass, we don't know how much.
How small is the possible range? Just last week I read - but possibly misunderstood - that the W-boson mass could not be directly measured so the researchers were using the masses of other decay particles to measure it. One of those other decay particles was the neutrino.Thankfully the internet archive has a backup: http://web.archive.org/web/20200521151158/https://www.cpepwe...
I remember being taught about electrons with their valence shells, protons, and neutrons. That's it. I didn't hear about a boson or a neutrino until well into adulthood.
It's still in the specification. AQA Physics is outlined here: https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/physics/specification... And OCR here: https://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/171726-specification-accredite...
For those not in the UK, apparently this means the last year of high school.
Luckily we've seen enough US movies to know what that means, kind of :)
My college physics department was otherwise very underwhelming and I'm amazed they had the imagination to plan it.
It's like the underlying EW theory has an internal space and the equations don't care about the "origin" in this space, if you made a simulation of this and moved the origin everything would look the same. But as soon as you introduce another all-encompassing field that interacts with EW that has a specific absolute value, the equations lose the symmetry - you can't move around the origin anymore as in effect you have now fixed the numbers.
Thanks.
why is it that all stuff made from charm, strange, top, and bottom, quarks decays right away?
The first generation have the lowest mass, and there are interactions between generations. Since physical systems like to explore the local energy space and find the lowest one, it follows that more energetic systems will quickly stabilize to lower energy configurations.
You might rightfully have two follow up questions at this point:
1. Why do the first generation fermions have the lowest mass?
2. Why do physical systems like to find the lowest energy configuration?
I don't believe anyone has the answers to those - so far as we can tell this is just the way the universe is. Maybe some day someone will figure out why.
I learned many things about the SM from this presentation I had never before retained.
Wondering now to what degree string theory seems to exactly require all of this, vs. merely be apparently compatible with it, insofar as it can be "solved" at all. Where it is too hard, maybe it is not known whether certain SM features are compatible, and everyone just hopes?
I mean, you could still ask why the different generations have different masses at all, but if they do, it follows that the "first generation" has the lowest mass.
PS. Q. Is that a tautology? A. Insufficient data points for a conclusive answer.
This is not an a priori reason, per se, but it does waggle its eyebrows up and down in a sort of anthropic way.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomaly_(physics)#Anomaly_canc...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabibbo%E2%80%93Kobayashi%E2%8...