ortant symmetry of light, “anonymity”, has been broken, and by Noether’s Theorem requires conservation. The same system does not operate for the quarks (there are no quark neutrinos), evidently because quarks are not elementary particles, rather they are sub-elementary particles. I presume the identity system in this case operates only at the elementary (leptonic) level of particles, which in the case of quarks and baryons corresponds to the primordial leptoquark. This leptoquark neutrino, however, can only be seen if we observe a leptoquark creation or decay, or what is equivalent, a proton (baryon) creation or decay. (I presume that a single species of leptoquark neutrino suffices to represent the identity charge of all the many varieties of baryons – since all must return to the same single leptoquark configuration to decay.)
The simple view of neutrino function presented above is correct so far as leptonic decays are concerned. However, this picture has recently become more complicated by the discovery of neutrino mass states and the oscillation of neutrino flavors in flight after the decay. Here symmetry conservation is apparently observed at the generic level of flavor, rather than the specific level – see the discussion below. (In a similar fashion, the presumed leptoquark neutrino is thought to code for the generic identity of all baryons, rather than any particular baryon “species”.)
Neutrino Mass and Oscillations
See: Scientific American, May 2010 pages 38-45: “Through Neutrino Eyes” by Gelmini, Kusenko, and Weiler for an authoritative discussion of neutrino oscillation and mass.
According to Gelmini et al., neutrino mass is the basis upon which one neutrino is distinguished from another. Neutrinos oscillate not only between their 3 leptonic flavors, but between 3 mass states, and it is the relative proportion of these mass states that determines flavor. Because any neutrino flavor can can exhibit any mass state, neutrinos can evidently code for flavor identity at both the generic level of all lepton flavors, and at the specific level of a single leptonic flavor. This solves the “mystery of the missing solar neutrinos”. (See: A. McDonald, J. Klein, and D. Wark: “Solving the Solar Neutrino Problem”. Scientific American,April, 2003.) (See also: Science: Vol. 313, 21 July 2006, page 291, regarding neutrino oscillations). The situation is complex in that while an electron neutrino can only react with an electron (or positron), it may nevertheless change into a muon or tau neutrino during flight, and while in this new configuration, react only with a muon or tau (or their antiparticles). Hence while a specific neutrino flavor does code for and react with a single leptonic flavor, you can’t be sure which neutrino flavor you are going to end up with, no matter what flavor you began with.
The fluid mix of neutrino identities (in flight) reflects the fluid state of identity in the electroweak symmetric energy state generally, in which all leptonic identities are merged at their generic level, and likewise all quark identities are merged at their generic level. In the electroweak symmetric energy state (or during the electroweak era of the “Big Bang”), transformations of one leptonic flavor into another, or one quark flavor into another, were simply the normal course of events. This is the generic level of symmetry which the “W” family of IVBs recreates (and is how the “W” effects identity transformations), not the specific level of “broken” symmetry (individual identity) we experience today. Specific leptonic and quark identities “freeze out” or “crystalize” only in the cold ground state of our present electromagnetic era. In flight, the neutrino seems to at least partially return to this fluid state of electroweak generic identity. Oscillations or superpositions of identity occur between other closely related particles as well, including the quarks of the “K0 long” and “K0 short” mesons, and even the proton-neutron “nucleons”.
It is interesting to note the unexpected but crucial role of mass in both the IVBs (field vec