Talk:Proton decay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
Contents |
[edit] Article phrasing concerns
The way this article is worded it presumes that proton decay actually occurs, when there is no evidence as yet that it actually does, just several theories which predict it. (IIRC, experimental evidence so far indicates that if it occurs at all, it takes a lot longer than many GUT candidates predict.)
- I've gone ahead and changed the article so it doesn't misstate the current consensus. Re the experimental evidence, the lower limit is evidence against the existence of decay, but it had been presented as if it was evidence in its favor; that didn't make sense, and I've changed it. I've also deleted this sentence: "The observation of neutrino oscillations also point towards proton decay being a real effect." Neutrino oscillation doesn't imply baryon number nonconservation; if there is some indirect, model-dependent link here, that needs to be explained.--Bcrowell 20:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Proton decay modes
The article incorrectly assumes that decay into a neutral pion and a gamma is the only possible channel. If no assumptions are made on the decay mode, the experimental lower limit on proton mean life is just 1.6×10^25 years.
Source: Particle Data Group
—Herbee 2004-02-10
[edit] Specific date and citation requested
"it has been recently determined..." -- when? -- Tarquin 09:50, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Proton decay objection
Proton decay is the conveniant hadn wave that many theories use to explain certain components of background radiation. I tis howveer highly unlikely. Neutrons decay because they are udd adn eventually both d will decay with the resulting electrons fighting over the only u, so one of them gets emitted. a Proton however being uud does nto have that problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnthonyQBachler (talk • contribs) .
[edit] Imbalance of matter and antimatter
This article takes it as fact that there was an imbalance in the ratio of antimatter to matter in the early universe. I don't think there is any real experimental evidence of this. If so where is the article on it. I myself even have proposed an alternate theory for the matter-antimatter imbalance that does not require this magic.` 64.26.170.107 00:23, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The article on it is at Baryogenesis. The reason why it is proposed is _because_ there is real evidence of it. As the temperature of the universe at the time of baryogenesis was higher than that required for pair production, particles would have been forming and annihilating constantly. An imbalance favouring the formation of matter over antimatter is the best explanation found to date for why there appears to be leftover matter in the universe. It may eventually be replaced with a different explanation, but any other explanation will have to be consistent with all of the observations that particle physics presently does such a good job of explaining. --Christopher Thomas 01:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Is the sphaleron mention OK?
If I'm reading the article on Sphalerons correctly, it is a theoretical possibility that remains unobserved - or so it seems to imply. So should this not be one of the possible proton decay modes, and thus appear BELOW the introduction? After all, the "normal" X boson mechanism is also assumed to be important only at high energies as well, so do sphalerons claim to explain the baron problem on their own, or not? Maury 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know much about sphalerons, but it seems to me that the statement "the Standard Model does not predict proton decay" has to be stated with a caveat about sphalerons. I'm pretty sure that SM baryon number violation does not account for baryogenesis. We might vague-ify the wording in the introduction and move the sphaleron discussion further down into the technical details, but I'm not sure that would make things more clear. I'm more concerned about the technical bits at the bottom, which are pretty opaque even to me; and those pictures make my eyeballs very sad. -- Xerxes 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- The proton is stable in the (pure) Standard Model; sphalerons only change the baryon number by 3. Maliz 14:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quote
"Diamonds are not forever" is a famous humorous phrase associated with the theory that protons might decay. Might be nice to find a reference and include that.
