# Erroneous Formula

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Willem, Apr 7, 2019.

1. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
211
If the formula:

tau- -> e- + electron antineutrino + tau neutrino

is in error, and should read:

tau- + tau antineutrino + tau neutrino -> e- + electron antineutrino + tau neutrino

Would this be consistent with the data?

3. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,947
Well, the tau antineutrino and tau neutrino can be created during the decay (look up: pair production), so I don't see why they should be included on the LHS of the equation? It's not like a tau-particle always carries around two neutrino's; that would be inconsistent with the data.

5. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
211
The formula as is shows conservation of Lepton Number.

7. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,947
Both formulae indeed show conservation of lepton number. So? How is that a point in favor or against one of the two, but not the other?

8. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,363
What are the tau neutrinos on the left hand side supposed to be doing in the interaction?

Got a Feynman diagram of this?

9. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
211
The tau neutrino and antineutrino starts to exist by pair production. A formula that shows more is better and more elegant.

I'm working on a Feynman diagram.

10. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
211
Here is the Feynman diagram:

I don't know if the picture will show.

11. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
211
Yes both show lepton number conservation but only the second formula shows Quark Conservation:

anti-udO + anti-udS + uanti-dS -> anti-udO + anti-udS + uanti-dS.

12. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,947
Sure, but in that case the LHS of your formula doesn't match reality; it's not the starting situation, and thus you need two steps: first the pair production, then the decay. Isn't it easier to just combine them, and not have to deal with the complicating in-between state?

You are wrong. Both formulae show "Quark Conservation". A tau is not a quark, an electron is not a quark, and a neutrino is not a quark. So, both formulae are devoid of any quarks on both the LHS and the RHS, and zero is equal to zero. QED.

What is "udO" etc.?

13. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
211
There is an in between state, but not at the input.

I contend that the electron and electron antineutrino still has anti-ud quark content. The reasoning is: an electron and electron antineutrino comes from an anti-ud and may combine again to form an anti-ud. Then it is just a notational step to assign an electron = anti-ud_O and an electron antineutrino = anti-ud_S. Then a neutrino = uanti-d_S. So anti-ud_O + anti-ud_S = anti-ud. It's clear cut.

14. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,947
No, obviously the "in-between" state doesn't exist at the input; that's what "in-between" means.

How about you just post it, like you tried before? Or upload it to some image hosting website, and then post the link here?

Ah, so you assume something for which there is no basis in reality, and based on that you then conclude that established theories are wrong. Yeah, that's not how science works. If you want to speculate about alternative theories, we have a separate subsection for that; please post your wild speculations there, thanks.

Well, something is indeed clear cut, yes.

15. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,363
Okay, my particle physics is a bit rusty so I'm prepared to be corrected here, but...

The Feynman diagram for a $\tau -$ decay would have the tau emitting a W- boson and thereby turning into a tau neutrino. The W- then decays into an electron antineutrino and an electron, giving the above formula.

I don't see why you want to introduce extra neutrinos on the left-hand side of the equation. They don't participate in the reaction.

16. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,363
What? Electrons and neutrinos aren't made of quarks. They are leptons.

17. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
211
It's economy of thought to think they have quark content. Then a sentence is a whole page of thought. How else are you going to justify a lepton's existence. Without this thought they hang in the air.

As shown the tau neutrino and antineutrino are required for Quark Conservation.

Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
18. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,947
Why not the other way around? Why can't it be the quarks that are made out of leptons? "How else are you going to justify a quark's existence. Without this thought they hang in the air."

19. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,363
I don't see how that's economy of thought.

Besides, there's no evidence for it, as far as I'm aware.

What?
How are you going to justify a quark's existence? Aren't you just arbitrarily guessing, in order to push the problem one step backwards?

Neither of those contain any quarks, so I don't know what you're on about.

20. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
211
The neutrinos have sub-quark content because they can bind again with an electron or positron.

There is plenty of justification for quark pairs, for example the Eightfold Way. Quarks aren't made of leptons since this does not give them nice properties. Leptons don't break up into quarks.

It gives economy of thought because it makes me feel like it does.

21. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,947
Or: "The electrons or positrons have sub-quark content because they can bind again with a neutrino."
Or: "The quarks have sub-neutrino content because they can bind again with an electron or positron."
If you provide no explanation why your particular choice is the correct one, all other possible choices are as correct as yours.

Properties being "nice" is not a scientific qualifier. Please refrain from pseudoscience outside the for-that appropriate subsection of the forum.

Exactly, and neutrino's don't break up into quarks either. You've just defeated your own argument.

In fact, seeing as neutrino's are leptons, you have doubly-defeated your argument!

Again, that is not how science is done. Please refrain from pseudoscience outside the for-that appropriate subsection of the forum.

22. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,363
Again, there's zero evidence for any quark content in either neutrinos or electrons/positrons. All of those are leptons, and their "binding" doesn't need quarks to explain it. In fact, as far as experiment can tell, all three of these particles are fundamental, indivisible.

I can't see the relevance of that to anything to do with leptons.

Quarks don't break into leptons either - not directly. That's what the weak interaction is all about, isn't it?

Economy would mean that you gain simplicity in some way. But your idea just makes leptons much more complicated, and unnecessarily so. We can explain everything that leptons do without invoking any "sub-quark content".

23. ### WillemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
211
You can't argue against:

electron + electron antineutrino = anti-ud