How do the W and Z Gauge Bosons work in the weak nuclear force?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the roles of W and Z bosons in weak nuclear interactions, explaining that both W+ and W- bosons facilitate transformations between neutrons and protons while conserving charge. The W+ boson is involved when a neutrino interacts with a neutron, changing a bottom quark to an up quark, while the W- boson occurs when a down quark emits it to become an up quark, resulting in similar transformations. The Z boson, which is neutral, mediates interactions that do not involve charge changes, allowing particles to scatter without altering their charge. The mechanics of these interactions are illustrated through Feynman diagrams, emphasizing the importance of gauge bosons in mediating forces. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexity and variety of weak interactions in particle physics.
Roroy
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I've seen explanations that when a neutrino with a W+ Boson comes near a neutron, it affects one of the bottom quarks and changes it to a up quark which effectively turns the neutron into a proton. The neutrino then turns into an electron.

Source:

(2:20 onwards)

I've seen other explanations which say that a down quark in a neutron emits a W- Boson and changes into a up quark, effectively turning the neutron into a proton. And then the W- Boson decays into an electron and antineutrino.

Source: http://atlas.physicsmasterclasses.org/en/zpath_radioactivity.htm

So which is the correct explanation?
And one more thing, I've searched many websites and I still can't find a good explanation for what exactly the Z boson does?
I get that it is neutral, but that's it.

Thanks to any help in advance. :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Both are correct, they're just describing different weak interactions. The first one is something called "charged current interaction", and can be shown schematically here: (time on the y axis)
feynman03.jpg


The second describes weak nuclear decay, schematically shown here:

These are just two examples of weak interactions. The boson that carries the weak force for any given reaction is the one that conserves electrical charge. Hence W+ in the first example, W- in the second. If no charge is carried, you use the Z boson. For example, the scattering of a neutrino and an electron:

feynman04.jpg


Does this clear things up?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi,

Thank you very much for the reply.
I've never learned how Feynman diagrams work but after doing some more research, I think I understand the first two interactions. :)
I take it that both the first two interactions apply to both W+ and W- bosons? As in the first interaction can also happen with W- and the second can also happen with W+?
Also, a question on the second interaction, if the W- Boson decays into an electron and anti-neutrino, then why isn't the arrow of the anti-neutrino the other way?

m7colg.jpg
And I still don't understand how the Z boson works exactly. Does it carry "no charge" between particles? Why does it need to carry no charge? Can't the electron and neutrino collide and then scatter by themselves?
I'm still quite confused on the mechanics and purpose of the Z boson.
Also, are there any other interactions? Or is it just these three?

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just really interested in this stuff.
Thanks again for the replies! :)
 
Last edited:
Roroy said:
Hi,

Thank you very much for the reply.
I've never learned how Feynman diagrams work but after doing some more research, I think I understand the first two interactions. :)
I take it that both the first two interactions apply to both W+ and W- bosons? As in the first interaction can also happen with W- and the second can also happen with W+?
Also, a question on the second interaction, if the W- Boson decays into an electron and anti-neutrino, then why isn't the arrow of the anti-neutrino the other way?

proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Foi62.tinypic.com%2Fm7colg.jpg

No, the arrow of anti-particles go in the opposite direction to that of the particles - this is notation, and harks back to the fact that antiparticles look like particles traveling backwards in time.

No, the choice of W+ or W- depends on the charge. You need to conserve charge at every vertex, so if you have a neutron turning into a proton, one unit of negative charge needs to be carried away by a W-, for a proton turning into a neutron, you need to carry away one unit of positive charge with the W+. So, with the above reactions, if instead you had a proton turning into a neutron, you'd have a W- in the first case, W+ in the second.
Roroy said:
And I still don't understand how the Z boson works exactly. Does it carry "no charge" between particles? Why does it need to carry no charge?

Like I said, you need to conserve charge at each vertex.

Can't the electron and neutrino collide and then scatter by themselves? I'm still quite confused on the mechanics and purpose of the Z boson.

That's exactly what that diagram shows! Collisions occur through some mediating force, which must be carried by a gauge boson. In this case, the weak force, and W+/W-/Z0. When electrons scatter off of each other, the force is mediated by a photon, the gauge boson for the electromagnetic force.

Also, are there any other interactions? Or is it just these three?

Many, many others! I alluded to a couple up at the top of this post, but there are many others beyond this! And I've only shown you the most simple version of the processes we've been discussing, too.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top