Classical electroweak field theory

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the absence of a classical force corresponding to the weak interaction within the framework of classical electroweak field theory. Participants explore the implications of unstable particles and the limitations of classical descriptions in relation to quantized systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that writing a Lagrangian density does not equate to having a classical counterpart for quantized systems, particularly for unstable particles like muons.
  • Another participant argues that classical electromagnetism can adequately describe atmospheric muons, despite their finite lifetime, and notes that the weak force's effective range is significantly smaller than the Compton wavelength of low-energy probes.
  • A participant questions why the Compton wavelength is relevant over the de Broglie wavelength when discussing classical electroweak field theory.
  • It is noted that a classical field requires a large number of bosons, but W/Z bosons are unstable, complicating the existence of a classical electroweak field theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of a classical electroweak field theory and the implications of particle stability, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without consensus.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations related to the definitions of classical forces, the role of particle stability, and the effective ranges of interactions, which remain unresolved.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K