Recently discovered ZZ diboson

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dmitry67
  • Start date Start date
Dmitry67
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
1
I know about fermions forming pairs, but I had never heard about the bosons doing it.

Why 2 Z bosons interact (contrary to 2 photons)?
How do we know that we detected 1 ZZ boson, not 2 independent interactions with single Z bosons?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I presume you are meaning something related to this measurement?

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive_2008/today08-08-21.html

Nobody has claimed that di-boson production implies a bound state. What is happening is illustrated by the feynman diagram here:

http://www.pd.infn.it/~dorigo/zzdecay.jpg

So you see, the initial fermion line (from quark anti-quark annihilation) radiates two Z bosons, which each in turn decay into whatever Zs can decay into. If each Z decays into the same thing (i.e. you get 4 electrons, 4 muons or 4 quarks), they are difficult to untangle. However, if you look for events where one Z decays to quarks, and the other decays to leptons (i.e. electron or muons, as taus look rather like quark jets), then you can find these events as quark jets and leptons are, generically speaking, detected in different subdetectors of an experiment. I have not mentioned neutrinos as you can't detect these at all (in a colliding HEP experiment at least)...

It is wrong to say that the Z bosons interact with themselves. The Z can, however, interact with the W+ and W-. As to why these gauge bosons can interact and the photon can't is a very interesting one. It boils down to the gauge structure of the underlying theory. The U(1) group of electromagnetism is an abelian group (meaning the generator - the fundamental description of the group - commute, i.e. G(1)G(2) = G(2)G(1)). However, in SU(2) x U(1), the electroweak group structure, the generators no longer commute (i.e. G(1)G(2) != G(2)G(1)). The non-commutation implies self interaction terms are allowed.
 
Thank you for the good explanation!
 
bomanfishwow said:
...

It is wrong to say that the Z bosons interact with themselves. The Z can, however, interact with the W+ and W-. As to why these gauge bosons can interact and the photon can't is a very interesting one. It boils down to the gauge structure of the underlying theory. The U(1) group of electromagnetism is an abelian group (meaning the generator - the fundamental description of the group - commute, i.e. G(1)G(2) = G(2)G(1)). However, in SU(2) x U(1), the electroweak group structure, the generators no longer commute (i.e. G(1)G(2) != G(2)G(1)). The non-commutation implies self interaction terms are allowed.

Actually, the photon can interact with the W+ and W- just like the Z can. The interaction is almost identical, except that the ZWW coupling has an extra factor of \cot\theta_w. Recall that in the electroweak theory, the U(1) of electromagnetism is a subgroup of the full SU(2) x U(1).
 
daschaich said:
Actually, the photon can interact with the W+ and W- just like the Z can. The interaction is almost identical, except that the ZWW coupling has an extra factor of \cot\theta_w. Recall that in the electroweak theory, the U(1) of electromagnetism is a subgroup of the full SU(2) x U(1).

Yes indeed, I was talking explicitly about Z/W interaction terms - I didn't want to get into the fact the U(1)s are different in each case!
 
Thread 'Why is there such a difference between the total cross-section data? (simulation vs. experiment)'
Well, I'm simulating a neutron-proton scattering phase shift. The equation that I solve numerically is the Phase function method and is $$ \frac{d}{dr}[\delta_{i+1}] = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\frac{V(r)}{k^2}\sin(kr + \delta_i)$$ ##\delta_i## is the phase shift for triplet and singlet state, ##\mu## is the reduced mass for neutron-proton, ##k=\sqrt{2\mu E_{cm}/\hbar^2}## is the wave number and ##V(r)## is the potential of interaction like Yukawa, Wood-Saxon, Square well potential, etc. I first...
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