It's a nontrivial statement about the Standard Model that you can. Then there would be no reasonable way to define anything like lepton number that's even remotely conserved. For example, it could have been the case that beta decay can produce an electron and an electron-anti-neutrino half the time, and an electron and an electron-neutrino the other half. In fact, in a general theory, it's not even guaranteed that you can define any number like lepton number that is conserved. And second, more exotic physics, such the effects of new particles, could change the lepton number, so we can search for such physics by looking for violations of lepton number. First, within the Standard Model, it's a useful tool to help us know what to expect in experiments. Now you might worry: doesn't this mean the conservation of lepton number is "fake"? Absolutely not, for two reasons.
(This is conserved within the SM to extreme, though not perfect accuracy, with tiny violations due to electroweak sphalerons and (if they exist) Majorana neutrino masses.) And summing that over families gives what we call the "lepton number".
#Slash code zero lepton plus
But the number of electrons plus the number of electron neutrinos is approximately conserved, so we decide to call that "electron number". With Zebra internal fonts you can use the CI command to direct the mapping of the zero characters to print with or without a slash. Similarly, the number of electrons (counting positrons as negative) plus the number of anti-electron neutrinos isn't remotely conserved, so it's not useful. It's much more useful to consider height times length times width, which is why we call that "volume" instead. But then it wouldn't stay the same if we poured the water from one container to another. Some of them are conserved (or approximately conserved), and hence useful, so we give them names.įor example, we could have defined the "volume" of a cube of water to be the square of its height times the cosine of its length divided by the logarithm of its width. There are infinitely many quantities that you could define. I have read about considerations related to the spin direction of the neutrino relative to its direction of motion, but these seem to be dependent on whether the neutrino is in fact massless, and so travels at the speed of light, which I gather is still uncertain.
Is there any independent experimental reason for deciding that it is an anti-neutrino rather than a "regular" neutrino, or is it termed an anti-neutrino just to make the law of lepton number conservation be true? If the neutrinos from ordinary beta-decay could be made, or were observed to, collide with other neutrinos that were independently known, by some different type of criterion, to be "ordinary" neutrinos, annihilating each other and producing two photons, this would be reason to call the neutrinos from beta-decay "anti-" neutrinos, but as far as I know, this isn't the case. A short introduction of SLASH REELCODE ZERO HG( high gear, )An exciting reel with great features. The proton has zero lepton number, the electron +1 lepton number, and, it is said, the neutrino-type particle has -1 lepton number, so is an anti-neutrino. In ordinary beta decay, an electron and an anti-neutrino, together with a proton, are emitted.
Parameters of "scattering" of leptons especially of neutrinos on other leptons, or on hadrons. The three charged leptons (electron, muon, tau-lepton) carrying equal electro-magnetic charge ( elementary negative charge, $Q = -e$) and equal weak hypercharge, $\text$, or Lepton universality is the model, or proposition, that the interactions of leptons of any of the (six) flavors are described consistently and essentially completely as electroweak interaction, with
0 kommentar(er)
