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.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?
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?The formula as is shows conservation of Lepton Number.
What are the tau neutrinos on the left hand side supposed to be doing in the interaction?The formula as is shows conservation of Lepton Number.
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?The tau neutrino and antineutrino starts to exist by pair production. A formula that shows more is better and more elegant.
It does not show; it's linking to your local hard drive.Here is the Feynman diagram:
![]()
I don't know if the picture will show.
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.Yes both show lepton number conservation but only the second formula shows Quark Conservation:
What is "udO" etc.?anti-udO + anti-udS + uanti-dS -> anti-udO + anti-udS + uanti-dS.
No, obviously the "in-between" state doesn't exist at the input; that's what "in-between" means.There is an in between state, but not at the input.
How about you just post it, like you tried before? Or upload it to some image hosting website, and then post the link here?Please send me your email address, NotEinstein, and I will email you the Feynman diagram.
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.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.
Well, something is indeed clear cut, yes.It's clear cut.
Okay, my particle physics is a bit rusty so I'm prepared to be corrected here, but...If the formula:
tau- -> e- + electron antineutrino + tau neutrino
What? Electrons and neutrinos aren't made of quarks. They are leptons.I contend that the electron and electron antineutrino still has anti-ud quark content.
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."How else are you going to justify a lepton's existence. Without this thought they hang in the air.
I don't see how that's economy of thought.It's economy of thought to think they have quark content.
What?Then a sentence is a whole page of thought.
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?How else are you going to justify a lepton's existence.
Neither of those contain any quarks, so I don't know what you're on about.As shown the tau neutrino and antineutrino are required for Quark Conservation.
Or: "The electrons or positrons have sub-quark content because they can bind again with a neutrino."The neutrinos have sub-quark content because they can bind again with an electron or positron.
Properties being "nice" is not a scientific qualifier. Please refrain from pseudoscience outside the for-that appropriate subsection of the forum.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.
Exactly, and neutrino's don't break up into quarks either. You've just defeated your own argument.Leptons don't break up into quarks.
Again, that is not how science is done. Please refrain from pseudoscience outside the for-that appropriate subsection of the forum.It gives economy of thought because it makes me feel like it does.
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.The neutrinos have sub-quark content because they can bind again with an electron or positron.
I can't see the relevance of that to anything to do with leptons.There is plenty of justification for quark pairs, for example the Eightfold Way.
Quarks don't break into leptons either - not directly. That's what the weak interaction is all about, isn't it?Quarks aren't made of leptons since this does not give them nice properties. Leptons don't break up into quarks.
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".It gives economy of thought because it makes me feel like it does.