Why was is it needed to include the Z boson along with the W's?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter happy42er
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Boson Z boson
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the necessity of including the Z boson alongside the W bosons in the context of gauge theories, particularly focusing on issues of renormalizability and unitarity. Participants explore theoretical implications and the structure of the gauge symmetry involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that including the Z boson is essential for maintaining a renormalizable theory, which requires a U(1) x SU(2) gauge invariance.
  • Others argue that without the Z and W bosons, the theory would violate unitarity, particularly in the context of high-energy interactions.
  • One participant mentions that the Fermi theory can describe low-energy weak interactions without intermediate bosons but is not renormalizable.
  • Another participant points out that the Fermi theory leads to cross sections that grow with energy, potentially exceeding unity, which raises concerns about unitarity.
  • There is a suggestion that both renormalizability and unitarity issues arise in the absence of the Z boson and W bosons.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the inclusion of the Z boson is primarily for renormalizability or unitarity, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific definitions of renormalizability and unitarity, as well as the unresolved nature of the implications of these concepts in the context of the discussed theories.

happy42er
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Why was is it needed to include the Z boson along with the W's... is the theory nonrenoramalizable without it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
happy42er said:
Why was is it needed to include the Z boson along with the W's... is the theory nonrenoramalizable without it?

Right. To have a renormalizable theory, one must have a U(1) x SU(2) gauge invariance. After spontaneous symmetry breaking, two of the gauge fields of the SU(2) symmetry as well as one linear combination of the U(1) generator and tau_3 generator acquire a mass..Those are the Z,W+,W-. The other, orthogonal, linear combination of the generators give the massless photon. If one simply throws in a W+ and W-, there is no gauge symmetry and the theory can't be made renormalizable.
 
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1979/glashow-lecture.pdf
 
arivero said:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1979/glashow-lecture.pdf

very interesting reference. Thanks!
 
happy42er said:
Why was is it needed to include the Z boson along with the W's... is the theory nonrenoramalizable without it?

I thought though that the reason why the Z and W bosons where included was because without them the theory violated unitarity.

Isn't that so?
 
I'm not sure about unitarity or renormalizability but one way to think about it was if the theory was SU(2) the theory has no mutually commuting generators so it's can describe theory of electromagnetism.
 
You can describe low-energy limit of weak interaction without intermediate bosons, that's called Fermi theory, but it is not renormalizable. A theory with spontaneously broken SU(2) x U(1) symmetry group nicely describes everything, and SU(2) x U(1) just happens to have 4 generators, which become a photon and three new gauge bosons.

I don't think that unitarity enters in any way.
 
hamster143 said:
You can describe low-energy limit of weak interaction without intermediate bosons, that's called Fermi theory, but it is not renormalizable. A theory with spontaneously broken SU(2) x U(1) symmetry group nicely describes everything, and SU(2) x U(1) just happens to have 4 generators, which become a photon and three new gauge bosons.

I don't think that unitarity enters in any way.

When I referred to unitarity I meant that in the Fermi theory there are cross sections that grow with the energy.

For example:

[tex]\sigma(e \nu \rightarrow e \nu) \propto {G_F}^2 s[/tex]

Since cross sections express the likelihood of interaction between particles, what happens is that at sufficient high energies the probability of some process happening is greater than 1. In the Fermi theory this energies are around [tex]\sqrt{s}[/tex]=300 GeV.

That's why I thought that there was a problem with unitarity.

After looking into it now I'd say that the theory had both problems, it wasn't renormalizable and it violated unitarity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K