Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: talanum1 on 30/03/2021 12:38:29

Title: Is the Bottom Quark Decay Formula Erroneous?
Post by: talanum1 on 30/03/2021 12:38:29
The formula:

b → s + e- + e-

is erroneous. First of all: quarks do not occur in single format.

If we assume a bottom quark can split into two strange quarks and the strange quark can transform into a down quark, I can explain the decay as follows:

bu + ud + d → s + su +ud + d → s +  du + d + u → sd + du  + du + u → sd + e- + e- + u
                  → sd + e- + e- + u

where the two electron antineutrinos' wavefunctions canceled each other. The formula, therefore, predicts that an up quark will also be produced. We see that charge is conserved in the formula (-1/3 = 1-1-1+2/3). I don't know what happens to the extra quarks.
Title: Re: Is the Bottom Quark Decay Formula Erroneous?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/03/2021 12:56:26
I can explain t
I don't know what happens
Pick one.
Title: Re: Is the Bottom Quark Decay Formula Erroneous?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2021 13:56:55
First of all: quarks do not occur in single format.

That decay doesn't require them to be isolated. The other two required quarks (or an antiquark) can be present without having to be explicitly mentioned in that particular equation like you've written.

bu + ud + d → s + su +ud + d

That violates conservation of charge (a single bottom quark decaying into two strange quarks causes a -1/3 charge to come out of nowhere). It's also ironic that you were complaining about the original decay scheme because "quarks do not occur in single format" and yet you post single quarks in your hypothetical decay yourself.

Quote
where the two electron antineutrinos' wavefunctions canceled each other.

A pair of antineutrinos can't cancel each other out.
Title: Re: Is the Bottom Quark Decay Formula Erroneous?
Post by: talanum1 on 30/03/2021 14:04:47
That formula is erroneous. It should read:

bu + u → su + s + u →su + su + u + u →su + du + d + u + u → su + du + du + uuu.

This does not suffer from the problem and charge is conserved if the LS up quark remains virtual so can be isolated.
Title: Re: Is the Bottom Quark Decay Formula Erroneous?
Post by: talanum1 on 30/03/2021 14:06:15
A pair of antineutrinos can't cancel each other out.

What happens to the two antineutrinos then?
Title: Re: Is the Bottom Quark Decay Formula Erroneous?
Post by: talanum1 on 30/03/2021 14:09:38
That decay doesn't require them to be isolated.

The second formula shows the companions must be mentioned.
Title: Re: Is the Bottom Quark Decay Formula Erroneous?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2021 14:15:42
bu + u → su + s + u

That still violates charge conservation: (-1/3) + (-2/3) + (+2/3) = -1/3, whereas (-1/3) + (-2/3) + (-1/3) + (+2/3) = -2/3

LS

LS?

What happens to the two antineutrinos then?

What antineutrinos?

By the way, where did you find that a bottom quark supposedly decays into a strange quark?
Title: Re: Is the Bottom Quark Decay Formula Erroneous?
Post by: talanum1 on 30/03/2021 14:31:01
LS = left side.

What antineutrinos?

From du decay.

By the way, where did you find that a bottom quark supposedly decays into a strange quark?

On a video somewhere.
Title: Re: Is the Bottom Quark Decay Formula Erroneous?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2021 14:36:05
From du decay.

It seems that's the negative pion, which decays into a muon and a muon antineutrino. I don't see why the antineutrino wouldn't just be emitted and fly away as normal.
Title: Re: Is the Bottom Quark Decay Formula Erroneous?
Post by: talanum1 on 30/03/2021 14:37:40
That still violates charge conservation:

Not if single quarks remain virtual until bound.
Title: Re: Is the Bottom Quark Decay Formula Erroneous?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2021 14:39:50
Not if single quarks remain virtual until bound.

Then as soon as they become bound, charge conservation has been violated.
Title: Re: Is the Bottom Quark Decay Formula Erroneous?
Post by: talanum1 on 30/03/2021 14:55:53
All this is junk: Wikipedia says a bottom transforms to a top, charm, or up quark. In the first case, it violates charge conservation.
Title: Re: Is the Bottom Quark Decay Formula Erroneous?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/03/2021 14:58:39
In the latter two cases, it violates charge conservation.

Not if it's compensated for by the other quarks changing to balance the charge.
Title: Re: Is the Bottom Quark Decay Formula Erroneous?
Post by: talanum1 on 13/04/2021 14:27:27
B+ -> K+ + e- + e+

is erroneous. In terms of quark content this is equivalent to:

ub -> us + e- + e+

There should exists an extra bs on the left side, to read:

ub + bs -> us + bb

otherwise we must get the s from ss production:

ub + ss -> us + sb

to get an extra sb on the right side and no produced energy.

I use quark flavor conservation in my formulae.