B Are W Bosons Truly Massive Particles or Just an Effect of Energy Equivalence?

OmCheeto
Gold Member
Messages
2,471
Reaction score
3,330
About 40 years ago, someone told me that free neutrons decay with a half life of around 14 minutes.
About 10 years ago, I discovered that W bosons were involved, and that they are about 100 times as massive as a proton.

Do W bosons really exist as "massive" particles for their very brief lifespan?
Or is their mass merely derived from the energy equivalence equation, and no one really knows?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think your two statements are in conflict. We determine the masses of many things - most unstable particles - through relativistic kinematics ("energy equivalence equation" is just a special case), But yes, the W has a rest mass.
 
  • Like
Likes OmCheeto
OmCheeto said:
About 10 years ago, I discovered that W bosons were involved, and that they are about 100 times as massive as a proton.
The "W bosons" in neutron decays are not real particles. They do not need to have the mass of real W bosons.
 
  • Like
Likes OmCheeto
Also, it's good to know that most weak decays don't have enough energy to create a real (on shell) and massive W bosons, so only virtual (off shell) W bosons are created in the process.
But the top quark is massive enough to create a real W boson in the decay process, which makes its decay a lot faster than other particles.
 
  • Like
Likes OmCheeto
mfb said:
The "W bosons" in neutron decays are not real particles. They do not need to have the mass of real W bosons.

Garlic said:
Also, it's good to know that most weak decays don't have enough energy to create a real (on shell) and massive W bosons, so only virtual (off shell) W bosons are created in the process.
But the top quark is massive enough to create a real W boson in the decay process, which makes its decay a lot faster than other particles.

I think this is what I was really asking; "Is the W- Boson involved in free neutron decay real, or virtual?"
And your's was the answer I was hoping for.
It's sometimes difficult for laymen to determine from pop-sci articles when particles are real, and when they're virtual.

Double thanks!
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Garlic
OmCheeto said:
Double thanks!

Double no problem
 
  • Like
Likes mfb
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