Quanta of massive vector fields

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the nature of W+, W-, and Z0 bosons as field quanta of massive charged vector fields, specifically Proca fields. Participants clarify that while W and Z bosons are examples of massive, spin-1 gauge fields associated with the electroweak force, the Z0 boson is not a linear combination of the W bosons but rather a distinct entity. The conversation also touches on the relationship between pions and their representation as scalar fields, emphasizing that the neutral pion is a linearly independent scalar field, separate from the charged pions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Proca fields and their properties
  • Familiarity with the electroweak force and gauge bosons
  • Knowledge of scalar fields and their representations in quantum mechanics
  • Basic concepts of isospin and particle physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties and implications of Proca fields in quantum field theory
  • Explore the electroweak unification and the role of W and Z bosons
  • Learn about the isospin symmetry and its application in particle physics
  • Investigate the differences between charged and neutral pions in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Particle physicists, quantum field theorists, and students of advanced quantum mechanics seeking to deepen their understanding of gauge fields and their interactions.

quantumfireball
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Are the W+,W- and Z0 the field quanta of the massive charged vector fields?
ie Proca fields
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They are massive and they are gauge fields (electroweak force). but the Z0 is not charged.
 
"Proca" fields are massive, spin-1 bosons. These objects are not unique. W and Z bosons are examples of these things. So is the rho meson in hadron physics. They are each their own separate Proca field.
 
but hadrons are not fundamental
but thanks for clearing the doubt regarding w bosons
 
what does "fundamental" have to do with anything?
 
olgranpappy said:
They are massive and they are gauge fields (electroweak force). but the Z0 is not charged.


yes but Z0 field can be written as a linear combination of W+ and W- fields
like in scalar fields right?to get a real valued field
 
what I mean by my above post is that "Proca" has nothing to do with "fundamental" - it's just the Lagrangian for a massive, spin-1 particle. The deuteron, for example, can be described by a proca field, as long as you're not interested in the substructure of the deuteron (ex: problems in atomic or molecular physics)!
 
quantumfireball said:
yes but Z0 field can be written as a linear combination of W+ and W- fields
like in scalar fields right?to get a real valued field

NO! The Z boson is NOT a linear combination of the charged W bosons! It is its own thing.
 
  • #10
wait a minute this is getting a bit confusing in nuclear physics the pions are described by complex scalar fields and over there the neutral pion is decribed by the field 1/2*(phi+phi*),i think i read this in JJ Sakurai advanced QM
Plz confirm
 
  • #11
quantumfireball said:
wait a minute this is getting a bit confusing in nuclear physics the pions are described by complex scalar fields and over there the neutral pion is decribed by the field 1/2*(phi+phi*),i think i read this in JJ Sakurai advanced QM
Plz confirm

You are mis-informed! The neutral pion is not related to the charged pions - it is a linearly independent scalar field.

I think you're getting confused with the following: the 3 pions form an isospin-1 field (3 components), call them \pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3. now you can write:

\pi^{\pm}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\pi_1\pm i\pi_2)

while \pi^0 = \pi_3. Here the sign corresponds to the charge.

Now for the W bosons, you can also write W^\pm\propto(W_1\pm iW_2) while the Z-boson is related to W_3, although the Z boson also has hypercharge so it's more complicated than the \pi^0.

Does that help?
 
  • #12
Also, in the quark model, remember that the charged pions are (u-dbar) and (d-ubar), while the neutral pion is (u-ubar)+(d-dbar) - so these are not the same thing!
 
  • #13
thanks a lot belchman
i know i was a confused
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
846
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K