PDA

View Full Version : Photon's antiparticle!!!


sreerajt
Feb3-12, 05:26 PM
It's said that photon is an antiparticle of itself. Also there are some particle following this property. How is this happening?

Pengwuino
Feb3-12, 05:35 PM
It's said that photon is an antiparticle of itself. Also there are some particle following this property. How is this happening?

Who says everything has to have a separate, distinguishable anti-particle? There is no reason to assume such a thing must happen. I don't know any other particles that are their own anti-particles (although there are theories that neutrinos may be their own anti-particles but this has not been experimentally shown and is not currently an accepted idea).

tom.stoer
Feb3-12, 05:49 PM
the neutral pion π° is its own antiparticle

sreerajt
Feb3-12, 07:10 PM
i heard that force carrier's have this property.

jtbell
Feb3-12, 10:56 PM
Not all of them. The W+ and W- are antiparticles.

VreemdeGozer
Feb4-12, 09:53 AM
A particle that is it's own anti-particle is called a Majorana particle (and is elementary). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_particle)

Currently, only Majorana bosons are known to exist, although, the neutrino might be a Majorana fermion.

clem
Feb4-12, 02:35 PM
I have never seen (until now) the term 'Majorana bosons' used, because the Majorana equation applies only to fermions.

thedemon13666
Feb5-12, 05:46 AM
The photon can not be as it does not self-couple

tom.stoer
Feb5-12, 08:04 AM
The photon can not be as it does not self-couple
For the classicfication of particles and antiparticles in terms of C, P- and T-symmetry this is irrelevant

sreerajt
Feb6-12, 07:59 PM
after all what is this c,p,t symmetry means?

tom.stoer
Feb7-12, 12:31 AM
after all what is this c,p,t symmetry means?

C = Charge conjugation
P = Parity (space inversion)
T = Time inversion

You need them to classify particles and antiparticles mathematically

ofirg
Feb7-12, 06:26 AM
Hi,

The Z boson and gluon are also there own antiparticle, right?

Ofir

clem
Feb7-12, 02:59 PM
No. A gluon has a color combination, such Red-AntiBlue. Its antiparticle would be
AntiRed-Blue. The Z is its own antiparticle.

ofirg
Feb7-12, 03:27 PM
Hi,

Thanks for your reply

I agree that a gluon with a specific color combination could have an antiparticle with a different color. However, the resulting color would be a linear combination of the colors of the gluons, with no need for antigluons. I believe that the gluon, as a color octet, is its own antiparticle.

For example, in supersymmetry, there is a hypothetical particle called the gluino. It has the same charges as the gluon but is spin half. It is treated as a majorana fermion, therefore its own antiparticle.

Ofir

sreerajt
Feb7-12, 07:22 PM
More than mathematics what is this symmetry?

tom.stoer
Feb8-12, 12:35 AM
what do you mean? which symmetry?

the symmetry of the quarks and gluons is called SU(3); it describes a rotation in a 3-dim. vector complex space; therefore when constructing this SU(3) one finds that there are 8 angles for rotations (instead of 3 as for rotations in a 3-dim. real vector space)

Dickfore
Feb8-12, 12:42 AM
the higgs boson is its own antiparticle.

tom.stoer
Feb8-12, 01:09 AM
in the simplest model - and iff it exists ;-)

Dickfore
Feb8-12, 01:11 AM
yes. i just wanted to point out that whenever your field is real, the antiparticle is the same as the particle.

tom.stoer
Feb8-12, 01:20 AM
i just wanted to point out that whenever your field is real, the antiparticle is the same as the particle.
Good point; this is due to the fact that for a real scalar field the operator C for charge conjugation reduces obviously to the identity, i.e. C=1

Dickfore
Feb8-12, 01:22 AM
The photon is in the vector representation, being described by the 4-potential A_\mu(x), but it is still real.

tom.stoer
Feb8-12, 01:25 AM
yes, but being real is not sufficient as you can see when looking at Wą

Dickfore
Feb8-12, 01:27 AM
yes, but being real is not sufficient as you can see when looking at W+ and W-

So, does it have to transform according to the trivial representation of the operation \mathit{C}?

tom.stoer
Feb8-12, 01:33 AM
I would say 'yes'