Tauonic atoms

[SamBridge]

I can't seem to find much on the specifics of tauonic atom formation and decay, which I guess makes sense because the tau particles we observe don't live long. As I understand it tauons on their own decay very quickly, but their orbital is more limited by their higher mass rather than the decay. But, why exactly does a tau particle decay so quickly? We have an oscillation mode of an electron, it just sits there and there's nothing happening, no decay, why does the higher energy cause decay? Perhaps it is a more physical property than I am giving it credit for and there is simply enough energy for a separate oscillation of a matter field to "spit off" or something to do with the uncertainty of the energy exceeding the boundary of the smaller localization of the tau particle, but I'm sure that can't completely describe it. Why exactly do muons and tauons decay so quickly, or really at all? I mean we could theoretically have like 13! periodic tables here if we can create sustainable atoms harnessing varying generation leptons, and just when I thought chemistry was pretty boring too.

Edited August 18, 2013 by SamBridge

[swansont]

Electrons don't decay because there is nothing for them to decay into. A number of things have to be conserved, including energy, so if there is no particle with lower mass, there will be no decay.

[SamBridge]

Electrons don't decay because there is nothing for them to decay into. A number of things have to be conserved, including energy, so if there is no particle with lower mass, there will be no decay.

Wow that really answers nothing, I can't believe I expected more from you when you do this with every single damn topic I start, 1+1=2, woop-de-doo. And then all you do is make things even more complicated because the implied questions of your rather empty statements are "why is there nothing for an electron to break down into?" and "why is matter quantized that way?" which you didn't even touch, which of course asks why muons aren't the first generation leptons themselves. Furthermore, you in no way describe anything of the actual mechanism by which a tauon decays which is more of what the topic is actually about.

If you don't want to give a good answer just don't bother answering, or PM someone and say "hey <other staff member>, can you handle this one for me?", and that's it. Someone get's a good answer and you don't have to waste time on something you can't bother to answer. You've been doing it for years now and I'm seriously tired of you making all of my question topics more complicated or filling them with empty and unhelpful posts, please stop posting on my topics. My suggesting is take a break, I'd much rather have quality over quantity.

Edited August 18, 2013 by SamBridge

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

sambridge

 

Do not cast aspersions on other members - even if you think they have provided an unsatisfactory answer. Every member gets to answer and post any question - all we ask is that speculative science goes in Speculations; the OP does not get to determine who answers the opening question.

 

protip - learn more physics before criticising others.

 

DO NOT respond to this moderation within the thread. Report this post if you feel it is unjust.

 

[ajb]

But, why exactly does a tau particle decay so quickly?

In short because it is so heavy. As mass can be seen as a kind fo energy and nature likes to be in the lowest energy configurations possible, heavy particles are inherently instable, assuming there are decay channels for them.

 

We have an oscillation mode of an electron, it just sits there and there's nothing happening, no decay, why does the higher energy cause decay?

 

What Swansont has said is correct. Due to the conservation laws of the standard model there are no decay channels for an electron.

 

Why exactly do muons and tauons decay so quickly, or really at all? I mean we could theoretically have like 13! periodic tables here if we can create sustainable atoms harnessing varying generation leptons, and just when I thought chemistry was pretty boring too.

See above.

[SamBridge]

In short because it is so heavy. As mass can be seen as a kind fo energy and nature likes to be in the lowest energy configurations possible, heavy particles are inherently instable, assuming there are decay channels for them.

So that is why the higher generation neutrinos don't decay? But wouldn't that imply they would decay "at some point"? Yet somehow neutrino oscillations make it from the Sun to the Earth without the different flavors decaying, but seeing as how they don't really decay, there must be a more direct factor that can inhibit the decay of other generations of leptons.

 

What Swansont has said is correct. Due to the conservation laws of the standard model there are no decay channels for an electron.

Yeah but that's just due to the fact that there isn't a lower state to decay into which is directly based off of the number theory that describes that matter, there cannot mathematically be a sustainable Lepton oscillation below the mass of an electron because that's just how the mathematics of oscillation work out, which then relates to number theory, so it's really just a fancier version of saying 1+1=2 or really just 1=1.

But at least I have some better idea of it with the natural tendency to be in a lower energy state which I forgot about, but I still don't understand the physical mechanism by which it happens. Is it like trying to use a hand blender without a lid and the other oscillation modes just happen to somehow escape because there's nothing holding them together? But then why wouldn't they just form a single oscillation pattern like with neutrinos or two electrons in the same orbital?

There is one other thing though too. isn't it theoretically possible that there are higher generations of particles like higher than Tau but they just decay too quickly for us to see them with our current technology?

Edited August 19, 2013 by SamBridge

[ajb]

So that is why the higher generation neutrinos don't decay?

The neutrino oscillations rely on the mass difference of the neutrinos being very small, the so called cohenrence length is large. This means that although this is a pure quantum effect, the ocsillations can be seen on a macroscopic level.

 

To understand this properly one need the PMNS matrix, which describes how the eigenstates are mixed.

 

Yeah but that's just due to the fact that there isn't a lower state to decay into which is directly based off of the number theory that describes that matter, there cannot mathematically be a sustainable Lepton oscillation below the mass of an electron because that's just how the mathematics of oscillation work out, which then relates to number theory, so it's really just a fancier version of saying 1+1=2 or really just 1=1.

And the fact that we just don't see a lighter particle that can fit the bill.

 

....but I still don't understand the physical mechanism by which it happens.

To get a better understanding you will need to look at the standard model of particle physics and some quantum field theory.

 

There is one other thing though too. isn't it theoretically possible that there are higher generations of particles like higher than Tau but they just decay too quickly for us to see them with our current technology?

Maybe, but I am sure there are some experiments or cosmological observations that places bounds on these things. I know for example that a much heavier as of yet unforseen neutrino would be problamatic for cosmology. Maybe someone else here is more familiar with the experiments than I am.

[SamBridge]

To get a better understanding you will need to look at the standard model of particle physics and some quantum field theory.

Ok well this is mainly what I was originally asking about and I've looked at QFT for some time in my free-time. What is the more physical reason for the decay to happen? Maybe nature likes to have things at the lowest possible energy state, but it's still possible to have higher energy states. I suppose you can relate it to that when you jump in the air, you naturally fall back down to a lower energy state, that is unless you have enough energy. Though an electron in an atom doesn't exactly "fall" to the nucleus because that would imply it has a continuous spectrum of energy.

 

 

Maybe, but I am sure there are some experiments or cosmological observations that places bounds on these things. I know for example that a much heavier as of yet unforseen neutrino would be problamatic for cosmology. Maybe someone else here is more familiar with the experiments than I am.

 

I suppose if time itself was quantized then there would be a limit because I'm sure after a certain point the hypothetical decay time would have to be less than a Planck second and the decay time would imply certain factors about the oscillation like it's mass, but that's all I can think of. What else would place a "limit"? "That's just the way it works out"?

 

Although I thought kinetic energy was continuous, but I thought I read something about the quanitnizaton of free-particle wave packets that implied it wasn't. Is there truly a continuous form of any type of energy or is the distance between nodal surfaces of varying oscillation modes of things like free-particle wave packets in kinetic motion just too small for us to measure and so it only appears continuous? Are there only quantized amounts of every type of energy? Because I know that's true for some, but then I read an article about beta decay which said it had a continuous spectrum of kinetic energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay

Edited August 19, 2013 by SamBridge

[swansont]

Are there only quantized amounts of every type of energy? Because I know that's true for some, but then I read an article about beta decay which said it had a continuous spectrum of kinetic energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay

 

 

The beta spectrum is continuous because the energy is shared between the beta, (anti)neutrino and recoil daughter. If there were only two particles, as in alpha decay, there would be a discrete spectrum since conservation of momentum mandates how the energy would be shared — the daughter and the alpha must be emitted back-to-back. With three particles, the angles can change, so there's an infinite number of ways the energy and momentum can be shared.

[ajb]

What is the more physical reason for the decay to happen? Maybe nature likes to have things at the lowest possible energy state, but it's still possible to have higher energy states.

I would take the fundamental reason for decays to be exactly that; nature likes to be in the lowest energy state possible.