Classical electroweak field theory

bcrowell
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
6,723
Reaction score
431
A question I'm sure I've seen asked here and/or elsewhere is why there doesn't seem to be any classical force corresponding to the weak interaction. I came up with the following, and am wondering whether this seems correct and satisfying to others.

Basically, being able to write down a Lagrangian density isn't the same thing as being able to describe the classical theory that is the counterpart of a quantized system. In particular, it seems like this can't possibly work for unstable particles. For example, the Lagrangian density for muon decay has a constant in it, GF, the Fermi coupling constant. The half-life of the muon goes like h/G_F^2. In the classical limit, the half-life goes to zero, so the classical theory of muons is a theory with no muons in it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Classical EM would serve quite well to describe the flight of atmospheric muons to a detector at sea level; the finite lifetime is not a significant problem. The reason there is no classical weak force (analogous to Coulomb's law) is because the effective range of the weak force is r_W \sim 1/M_W, which is orders of magnitude smaller than the Compton wavelength of any low-energy probe. This is of course ignoring that EM and strong interactions between the probes we do have available would make it hard to isolate the weak interaction in the first place.
 
fzero said:
Classical EM would serve quite well to describe the flight of atmospheric muons to a detector at sea level; the finite lifetime is not a significant problem.
I'm talking about the fundamental underlying field theory.

fzero said:
The reason there is no classical weak force (analogous to Coulomb's law) is because the effective range of the weak force is r_W \sim 1/M_W, which is orders of magnitude smaller than the Compton wavelength of any low-energy probe.
I'm interested in the reasons why there isn't even in principle any classical electroweak field theory.

(Why would the relevant thing be the Compton wavelength, h/mc, rather than the de Broglie wavelength, h/p, that was relevant?)
 
I'm interested in the reasons why there isn't even in principle any classical electroweak field theory.
To have a classical field you need to accumulate a large number of bosons, and the W/Z bosons are unstable.
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top