Unambiguous Evidence for Weak Neutral Currents

hob
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



What observation of the process: (anti muon neutrino) + (electron) -> (anti muon neutrino) + (electron) constitutes unambiguous evidence for weak neutral currents,

whereas the observation of (anti electron neutrino) + (electron) -> (anti electron neutrino) + (electron)

The Attempt at a Solution




The solution is the first one:

{www}.scribbleproductions.co.uk/stuff/fine1.jpg

Since the second reaction can undergo via W+ as well as Z0:

{www}.scribbleproductions.co.uk/stuff/fine2.jpg


My question is in the Feynman diagrams, why could you not have this for example:

An electron decaying to a muon neutrino ?

{www}.scribbleproductions.co.uk/stuff/fine3.jpg

Apparently the weak interaction also violates charge conservation, but I have never seen a possible reaction with a Feynman diagram that is violated at the vertices's.

Many thanks for any help :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hob said:

Homework Statement



What observation of the process: (anti muon neutrino) + (electron) -> (anti muon neutrino) + (electron) constitutes unambiguous evidence for weak neutral currents,

whereas the observation of (anti electron neutrino) + (electron) -> (anti electron neutrino) + (electron)

The Attempt at a Solution




The solution is the first one:

{www}.scribbleproductions.co.uk/stuff/fine1.jpg

Since the second reaction can undergo via W+ as well as Z0:

{www}.scribbleproductions.co.uk/stuff/fine2.jpg


My question is in the Feynman diagrams, why could you not have this for example:

An electron decaying to a muon neutrino ?

{www}.scribbleproductions.co.uk/stuff/fine3.jpg

Apparently the weak interaction also violates charge conservation, but I have never seen a possible reaction with a Feynman diagram that is violated at the vertices's.

Many thanks for any help :)

The weak interaction does NOT violate charge conservation! So your third diagram is impossible. Charge is always conserved
 
nrqed said:
The weak interaction does NOT violate charge conservation! So your third diagram is impossible. Charge is always conserved

Thanks for that, I was a bit uneasy to see charge violation.

Does weak violate anything to do with charge? I remember seeing something about charge violation that only the weak does not strong or e.m

Regards,
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top