Antiparticles of Standard Model gauge bosons

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of antiparticles for gauge bosons in the Standard Model, particularly focusing on gluons and W bosons. Participants explore theoretical implications, definitions, and the relationships between particles and their antiparticles, considering both conceptual and technical aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that all elementary bosons except the W boson are their own antiparticles, questioning whether this applies to gluons as well.
  • There is uncertainty about the nature of gluons, particularly regarding their color charge and how it relates to their antiparticles under CPT inversion.
  • One participant suggests that the distinction between gluons and antigluons may not be clear-cut, raising questions about the quantum numbers that differentiate them.
  • Another participant discusses the W bosons, noting that while they are often considered antiparticles of each other, the relationship may be more complex at the quantum field theory level.
  • Some participants express doubt about the validity of stating that W+ and W- are antiparticles, emphasizing the need for a specific relationship at the QFT level.
  • References to external sources are made, with some asserting that gauge bosons, including W bosons, have antiparticles, while others highlight the complexity of these relationships.
  • One participant mentions that the gauge bosons are described as real representations in the context of the Standard Model, implying they are their own antiparticles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of antiparticles for gluons and W bosons. Multiple competing views remain, particularly regarding the definitions and relationships at the quantum field theory level.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of the quantum field theory behind the relationships between particles and antiparticles, indicating a need for further exploration of the topic.

  • #31
Might I open a slightly different manner of query that might have some resolution?

It could very well be that this idea is not very good. If so, I would like to know why, in the language that even a non-particle physicist would understand.

We could represent a standard model particle ##P## as ##P=a X_1 + b X_2 + c X_3## having ##SU(3)## symmetry, requiring that ##a^2+b^2+c^2=1##, 'cause there is just one particle.

Generally, for ##P## having ##SU(n)## symmetry then there are ##n## terms, right?

Given that all this is not too stupid, what is the action of the operator ##CPT## on ##P## ? I have no idea how to apply the action of ##C##, ##P##, and then ##T ## is applied.

Say ## \bar{P} = CPT(P)##. I assume that if ##\bar{P} = P##, then ##P## is it's own antiparticle and for all standard model particles, ##(CPT)^2 P = P##.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
stedwards said:
Say P¯=CPT(P) \bar{P} = CPT(P). I assume that if P¯=P\bar{P} = P, then PP is it's own antiparticle and for all standard model particles, (CPT)2P=P(CPT)^2 P = P.

You don't need the invariance under CPT to have particle=antiparticle... In fact any particle in the Standard Model should be invariant under CPT.
For the particle= antiparticle you have the action of C alone.
 
  • #33
ChrisVer said:
You don't need the invariance under CPT to have particle=antiparticle... In fact any particle in the Standard Model should be invariant under CPT.
For the particle= antiparticle you have the action of C alone.

Say, for example, ##\frac{i}{\sqrt{3}}R + \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}G - \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}B##, how would you apply charge conjugation?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
16K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K