Why is there still disagreement over the b quark's name?

In summary: One could also measure the rare, but far less background ridden process s->Wt for highly energetic s quarks, and get the inverse from which the measured rate could be...This could be done by looking at the distribution of the masses of the particles produced, or looking at the branching fractions of the decay products.This could be done by looking at the distribution of the masses of the particles produced, or looking at the branching fractions of the decay products.In summary, some papers today describe the b quark as a beauty quark, while others refer to it as a bottom quark. For now, there is no clear consensus on which term to use. There is no accepted rule, but it
  • #1
ohwilleke
Gold Member
2,533
1,497
Some physics papers today describe the b quark as a beauty quark. For example:

"Displaced B−c mesons as an inclusive signature of weakly decaying double beauty hadrons", T. Gershon, A. Poluektov (Submitted on 15 Oct 2018)

Others physics papers today refer to b quarks as bottom quarks. For example:

"Higgs production in association with bottom quark pair at LHC"
Wen-Tao Huang, Hong-Lei Li, Shi-Yuan Li, Peng-Cheng Lu, Zong-Guo Si, Ying Wang, Zhong-Juan Yang (Submitted on 28 Sep 2018)

The b quark is a particle that was theoretically predicted to exist in 1973 and first observed experimentally in 1977.

But, here we are in late 2018 and there still doesn't seem to be a consensus (if there is actually a widely adopted rule regarding the contexts in which you use one versus the other, that would also be an acceptable answer to this question).

Is there are pattern regarding who uses which terminology in terms of geography, educational pedigree, or position on issues in physics, or is it just a matter of personal preference? Are there style guides addressing the issue at places like CERN and Fermilab and Jefferson Labs?

Why does the dual terminology persist?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
From the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics:

http://iupap.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/A4.pdf (page 12)

The names for quarks are the symbols themselves; the names ‘up’, ‘down’,
‘charm’, ‘strange’, ‘top (truth)’ and ‘bottom (beauty)’ are to be considered only as mnemonics for these symbols.
(where "the symbols" are u, d, c, s, t, b.)

I remember some people using 'truth' and 'beauty' when I was a grad student in particle physics 35-40 years ago, but 'top' and 'bottom' became conventional. I'm rather surprised to see someone use 'beauty' nowadays, although I admit I haven't paid attention to this particular issue. The paper you cited is a preprint that has not yet gone through editorial review by a journal. I don't know whether a journal editor would change it to 'bottom' or just 'b' for publication. It might depend on the journal.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke
  • #3
top / bottom is far easier to speak than truth / beauty. Since particle physics is very international, this might have been the reason.
 
  • #4
I haven't seen the term "truth" used for a t quark for ages (maybe never). But, see "beauty" used for a b quark on a regular basis, including in published articles (I link to pre-prints simply because its easier to quickly find examples and I review them every day). I wonder if beauty just sounds nicer when describing hadrons with it as a component than bottom.
 
  • #5
ohwilleke said:
I wonder if beauty just sounds nicer when describing hadrons with it as a component than bottom.
I think that is the point. I see "bottom" more often, but some people like "beauty", and everyone understands them, so there is no strong incentive to unify it.
 
  • Like
Likes dlgoff
  • #6
the beauty is in the bottom... :-D
 
  • Like
Likes eloheim
  • #7
There is certainly some charm to the name beauty. Especially as the two often come together in particle physics. You have b->c as dominant decay and often charm as background as well. Or B hadrons as background if you study charm.
 
  • Like
Likes eloheim and ohwilleke
  • #8
mfb said:
There is certainly some charm to the name beauty. Especially as the two often come together in particle physics. You have b->c as dominant decay and often charm as background as well. Or B hadrons as background if you study charm.
Does this imply truth is often strange?
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #9
MathematicalPhysicist said:
the beauty is in the bottom... :-D
Especially at CLEO. :cool:
 
  • #10
jtbell said:
Especially at CLEO. :cool:
I don't think I've ever seen that many references (198) on a Wikipedia article.
 
  • #11
Wikipedia has a list of articles with most references
The CLEO article is exceptionally detailed due to this edit.
fresh_42 said:
Does this imply truth is often strange?
t->Wb is the only decay observed so far. For the other quarks the status is better, with all the transitions seen. t->Ws should be the second-most decay, but so rare and so hard to distinguish from background that it won't be measured anytime soon (unless it is much more frequent than predicted).
 
  • #13
mfb said:
t->Ws should be the second-most decay, but so rare and so hard to distinguish from background that it won't be measured anytime soon (unless it is much more frequent than predicted).

Or, unless we find some clever way to distinguish it from background statistically, for example, by carefully integrating data about angular momentum and linear momentum of decay products in each decay chain to distinguish t->Ws from decays such as c->Ws, so that lots of background can be efficiently distinguished.

One could also measure the rare, but far less background ridden process s->Wt for highly energetic s quarks, and get the inverse from which the measured rate could be determined.
 
  • #14
mfb said:
t->Ws should be the second-most decay

Actually, I believe it's $$t \rightarrow W + b + \gamma$$.
 
  • #15
ohwilleke said:
Or, unless we find some clever way to distinguish it from background statistically, for example, by carefully integrating data about angular momentum and linear momentum of decay products in each decay chain to distinguish t->Ws from decays such as c->Ws, so that lots of background can be efficiently distinguished.

One could also measure the rare, but far less background ridden process s->Wt for highly energetic s quarks, and get the inverse from which the measured rate could be determined.
Good luck...
Vanadium 50 said:
Actually, I believe it's $$t \rightarrow W + b + \gamma$$.
Didn't think about that. It doesn't sound easy to measure either.
 

FAQ: Why is there still disagreement over the b quark's name?

Why is there still disagreement over the b quark's name?

There is still disagreement over the b quark's name because the naming of particles in physics is a complex process that involves collaboration and consensus among scientists from different research groups and institutions. Additionally, the discovery of the b quark was a major breakthrough in particle physics, and there are differing opinions on who should get credit for its discovery and thus have the honor of naming it.

Who discovered the b quark?

The b quark was discovered in 1977 by a team of scientists led by Leon Lederman, Melvin Schwartz, and Jack Steinberger at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) in the United States. However, there were also other scientists, such as Sheldon Glashow and John Iliopoulos, who made significant contributions to the discovery and have also been credited with its discovery.

What were the proposed names for the b quark?

There were several proposed names for the b quark, including the "beauty" quark, the "bottom" quark, and the "truth" quark. The first two names were popular among American scientists, while the third name was favored by European scientists. Ultimately, the "bottom" quark was chosen as the official name, but the debate over the name still continues.

How is the name of a particle decided?

The name of a particle is typically decided through a process of consensus among scientists in the field. After a new particle is discovered, scientists will propose different names and engage in discussions and debates to determine the most suitable name. Factors such as historical significance, simplicity, and cultural references may also play a role in the decision.

Why is the name of a particle important?

The name of a particle is important because it helps scientists communicate and refer to the particle in a standardized way. It also gives credit to the scientists who made the discovery and allows for easier recognition and referencing in scientific literature. Additionally, the name of a particle can also reflect its properties or characteristics, providing valuable information to other scientists studying the particle.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top