Division of quarks to leptons result in quark-lepton complementary?

[KyleStreet]

Hi, I was told by a physics tutor that if you do the following you will result in pi with a complementary between the heaviest quarks and leptons in forms of spin 0 and 1. So I copied what she was saying:

((Top Quark mass/Tau mass)/(Charm Quark mass/Muon mass)) /

((Charm Quark mass/Muon mass)/(Up Quark mass/Electron mass)) = pi


I verified that the division part was equal to 3.13 etc but not 3.14 etc, so that part is wrong.

What did she mean by quark-lepton complementary and why should the spin be 0 and 1? I wonder if the statement she made is even valid.

 

[eljose79]

Hello,

Thank you for bringing this forum post to my attention. It is always important to critically evaluate and verify information, especially in the field of science.

Firstly, I would like to clarify that there is no such thing as a "heaviest quark" or "heaviest lepton." Quarks and leptons are fundamental particles that do not have a measurable size or weight. Therefore, the concept of a "heaviest" particle in this context does not make sense.

Secondly, the equation provided in the forum post does not result in pi. The value obtained from the division is approximately 3.13, which is not equal to pi (approximately 3.14). This suggests that the statement made by the physics tutor may not be valid.

In terms of the quark-lepton complementary and spin 0 and 1, I believe the tutor may have been referring to the concept of "spin-statistics theorem." This theorem states that particles with integer spin (such as the top quark and tau lepton) follow Bose-Einstein statistics, while particles with half-integer spin (such as the charm quark and muon) follow Fermi-Dirac statistics. This complementary behavior is observed in the behavior of these particles in certain physical phenomena.

However, I do not see a direct connection between this theorem and the equation provided in the forum post. It is possible that the tutor was trying to explain the concept in a simplified manner, but it is not accurate to say that this equation will result in pi.

In conclusion, I would advise approaching this statement with caution and further research. It is important to critically evaluate information and verify it through reliable sources. I hope this helps clarify your doubts.