Is the coupling constant just Gz for all these interactions?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the coupling constants associated with the Z boson in particle interactions, specifically regarding leptons, anti-leptons, quarks, and their corresponding antiquarks. Participants are questioning whether the coupling constant is uniform across these interactions or if it varies, potentially involving terms like Gz and Sin(z).

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are exploring the nature of the coupling constants for different particle interactions, questioning if Gz is consistent or if variations like Gz.Sin(z) apply. There are inquiries about the implications of CPT violations and the concept of running coupling constants.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing their thoughts and seeking confirmation on the correctness of their understanding regarding the coupling constants for various interactions. Some have expressed uncertainty about the differences in coupling constants for quarks versus leptons.

Contextual Notes

There are references to different notations and the potential for CPT violations, as well as the concept of running coupling constants, which may affect the interpretation of the coupling constants in question.

venomxx
Messages
36
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Just a quick question, the Z can couple to leptons and there antiLeptons and quarks and there corresponding antiquark. Is the coupling constant just Gz for all these interactions? Or is it Gz.Sin(z) for some and not for others?

Iv seen different notation and am wondering why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
venomxx said:

Homework Statement


Just a quick question, the Z can couple to leptons and there antiLeptons and quarks and there corresponding antiquark. Is the coupling constant just Gz for all these interactions? Or is it Gz.Sin(z) for some and not for others?

Iv seen different notation and am wondering why?

What is the solution of the photon?

ie

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diagram.svg

In SR?

ie

\bar{x}=x

and

\bar{z}=z

The coupling constant is constant. so G_z=Gz.Sin(z) if there are no CPT violations.

Charge Parity Time (CPT)

Thus CPT symmetry.

And thus QFT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cheers for the response :)

So for a Z --> e-e+ and Z--> qq" the coupling constants would be the same? Gz = gz*Sin(z)? I know that it changes for the weak depending on if its interacting with quarks or leptons, I am still unsure of why the difference?

Also out of curiosity... i thought it can't be constant because of the 'running of the coupling constants' idea?
 
venomxx said:
Cheers for the response :)

So for a Z --> e-e+ and Z--> qq" the coupling constants would be the same? Gz = gz*Sin(z)? I know that it changes for the weak depending on if its interacting with quarks or leptons, I am still unsure of why the difference?

Also out of curiosity... i thought it can't be constant because of the 'running of the coupling constants' idea?

Exactly weak has CPT violations inherent in it thus The Nobel prize for electro/weak theory.
 
Schrödinger's Dog said:
Exactly weak has CPT violations inherent in it thus The Nobel prize for electro/weak theory.

Electroweak theory has CP violations. No theory has CPT violations.
 
Subsequently i have found it to be a little different then mentioned above:

(z --> uu') has a coupling constant GzCos(z)
(z --> dd') has a coupling constant GzCos(z)

(z --> cc') has a coupling constant GzSin(z)
(z --> ss') has a coupling constant GzSin(z)

Can i confirm that this is correct? Also i am still unsure for leptons, am i to assume its just Gz like for W bosons?

Cheers
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K