This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Weak interaction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Weak interaction has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
The process
cannot happen without another potential! It's the same as with
which violates energy and momentum conservation. That's obvious if going to the electron's rest system! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.17.78 ( talk) 03:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The section on violation of symmetry states, in a kind of unclear (contextual) way, that the weak force violate CP symmetry. This is not the case. The 'bare' weak force preserves CP symmetry, whereas the weak force in the SM because of the SU(2)xSU(3) structure violates it. 83.89.32.26 ( talk) 16:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering what use the authors of this page expect the page to be. The level of physics knowledge needed to comprehend this page is beyond that of anyone who would need to look up the subject of the page. I'd tackle trying to write a basic explanation, but I'm not a physicist, and would be afraid of making some basic errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.233.70 ( talk) 17:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. Yes, it is extremely complex, however, in this format I will be able, should i choose to, and see it important enough, to follow the data and links, until I have as complete an understanding of the matter as I wish to. I'm sure there are simple explanations on the web for anyone seeking that; and perhaps a simple explanation as an aid would be good, however, I believe wikipedia's format allows anyone who wishes to have a true understanding of something to do so, and it should stay that way; not be (excuse the expression) "dumbed down" for the sake of simplicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.9.223 ( talk) 19:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I think he may be a Wikipedia contributor. I don't think he uses it as a "Reference Book" but as a platform for him to share his knowledge on this particular subject TappyDoggy365 ( talk) 13:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The diproton article claims this is the force responsible for stellar fusion (limiting the rate). Why? It'd be nice to mention that here. -- Andrew 05:25, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Weak interactions occuour in stellar fusion because elements with more than one proton require a neutron to stop the protons from repelling each other with their + charges. Neutrons mutually attract the protons with strong force, and if weak interactions didn't take place, elements would be unable to fuse in stars.
The statement that the weak force is one of the four fundamental forces cannot be true at the same time as the statement that there is an electroweak force which the weak force is an aspect of. Could someone please clarify this? -- Etxrge 20:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
-- Rmrfstar 04:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I suggest replacing "the four fundamental interactions of nature" with "the fundamental interactions of nature". A minor change but it is technically correct and is not going to cause any confusion. Mtpaley ( talk) 23:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
This is because, under current conditions in the known universe, the weak force behaves as if it were a separate force to all others (strong, electromagnetic, gravity). However, under certain conditions, the weak force and the electromagnetic force behave in the same way. Because of this, physicists view the weak nuclear force as part of an 'electroweak' force; however it is useful when applied to ideas concerning the universe as it currently stands to consider the weak force as a separate force to the others.
Can anyone provide a little history? Who first proposed the idea of this force and when? -- Mrnatural 02:51, 12 Jun, 2005 (UTC)
Should not this article be titled, "Weak interaction" as Strong interaction is? -- Rmrfstar 7 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)
Fundamental interaction says weak nuclear force is 1025 times weaker than strong nuclear force. Weak nuclear force says it is just is 109 weaker. What is correct? Miraceti 13:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Does the weak nuclear force generate an attractive or repulsive force between two particles? The other 3 forces generate attractions and/or repulions, so shouldn't the weak nuclear force do the same thing, especially if it is supposed to be similar to the EM force?
Proton decay states that free neutrons decay in approximately 10 minutes due to weak interaction. Can someone add some details about this? Confuted 17:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) 12:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
-- Xerxes 18:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Which pairs of weakly interacting particles attract each other and which repel each other via weak interaction? Is there any charge associated with weak interaction (such as electric charge in electromagnetism, or mass in gravity) that could be used to determine whether there will be attraction or repulsion between the particles caused by weak interaction? -- 193.198.16.211 ( talk) 19:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems impossible (or merely abstract) for anything to be more than one time less than another, yet the article states "the typical field strength is 1011 times less than the strength of the electromagnetic force and some 1013 times less than that of the strong force..." (A few statements on this page also use similar language.)
Though the electromagnetic force may be 1011 stronger than the typical field strength, that equation does not work in reverse. To simplify, field x is twice as strong as field y (x=2y), but you would not say that y is twice weaker (y=x-2x), you would say y is half weaker (y=.5x).
Apparently, the numbers that are hinted at in the article are extremely small fractions of the numbers being compared, but that is not what the language states. There must be a more accurate way of stating what is meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.36.94 ( talk) 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
had to fix a few glaring errors in this page, I'm surprised noone noticed them before, especially under 'properties' section... someone claimed that "It is the only action which violates parity symmetry P (because it almost never acts on left-handed particles). It is not the only one which violates CP (CP Symmetry)."... hmmm its a good thing they are wrong because if that were the case, then the sun would not shine, and we would not exist. the weak force acts ONLY on left handed particles, and right handed ANTIparticles. someone needs to go back to physics class before they start writing wiki articles. fixed a few typos too, but didn't get to all of them...could someone who actually has a degree try to clean up this very important article please? - donnie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.121.213 ( talk) 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
the violation of symmetry section badly needs cleanup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.121.213 ( talk) 20:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The arrow on the neutrino should point in the opposite direction. The W particle is about 100 times more massive than a neutron, which makes this interaction seem kind of ridiculous without a weird interpretation of the neutrino as traveling backward in time. Look at the neutron decay diagram referenced by the discussion page for beta decay for a correct treatment. -- 213.235.192.234 ( talk) 17:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I got it fixed at the Graphic Labs. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The arrow is backward or the particle is wrong. You either need a neutrino moving backward in time or an antineutrino moving forward in time. Right now, the picture shows an antineutrino moving backward in time, which is the equivalent of a neutrino going forward in time. The decay shown would therefore violate the conservation of lepton number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.25.83 ( talk) 22:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
And if it were switched around, other people would complain. Your point? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
In the article, "the emission of electrons by protons or positrons by neutrons in atomic nuclei" probably does not obey the charge conservation law. Or am I wrong? -- FDominec ( talk) 20:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are right (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay). Could anyone correct this? -- 12 July 2010 (UTC) --
"Its most familiar effect is beta decay (or the emission of electrons by protons or positrons by neutrons in atomic nuclei) and the associated radioactivity"
the electron and positron has switched places
should be:
"emission of positrons by protons (forming neutrons) or electrons by neutrons (forming protons) in atomic nuclei" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.252.22.178 ( talk) 06:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Should the Z boson be mentioned in the weak interaction section? It seems to me that this is a prediction of electroweak theory, not a weak exchange particle. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 10:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this section should be made more accessible to the non-expert. For what it's worth, an excellent discussion of the weak interaction (and of particle physics and the fundamental forces) can be found at www.learner.org/courses/physics. This discussion is aimed at the non-scientist, yet goes into a reasonable amount of detail. (And, no, I am not associated in any way with the site or the people who developed it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davem62 ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I've attempted to make the article easier to understand, mainly by a) simplifying the odd bit of language in a minor way and b) some reorganisation so the understandable is not mixed with the 'incomprehensible' (from a non-expert). I'm aware I may have introduced errors, but if you could pause before turning simplifications (none of which I believe are too extreme) into complicated but more precise language, this might help. Thanks. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 13:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
32.178.171.35 ( talk) 03:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Suggest adding the following link back to the definition of the 4 fundamental forces to aid the novice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_fundamental_forces perhaps via hyperlink at "forces or interactions". - Nick 8 March 2011 32.178.171.35 ( talk) 03:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph added by editor Poppit:
First of all, the weak force affects both quarks and leptons. Second, quarks and leptons are elementary particles. What does Poppit mean when he writes that "individual quarks" are "bound together" by the weak force? Ptrslv72 ( talk) 16:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, this other sentence is also misleading:
in principle a real W boson can decay with equal probability in any charged-lepton+neutrino pair. The probability for decays into quark pairs are more complicated due to the CKM mixing, but the total probability for decays into quarks is roughly twice the total probability for decays into leptons. However, we are talking here of a virtual W boson emitted in the decay of a real quark. Only the decay channels in which the sum of the masses of the decay products is smaller than the mass of the parent particle are allowed. This is why a down quark can only decay in an up quark plus electron and neutrino, while the decay of a charm quark might also involve a muon (or be purely hadronic). The idea that we can decompose the decay in 1) a quark decaying in another quark and a W boson with 2) the W subsequently decaying in leptons (or lighter quarks) as if they were independent processes is too simplistic. Ptrslv72 ( talk) 17:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I also notice that the classification of "three basic types of weak interaction" in the section Interaction types is a mess. The first sentence states that the first type is the neutral-current interaction, and then there are two types of charged-current interaction. However, the next sentence says that the first type is the charged-current interaction of leptons. This is contradictory. Furthermore, it is not clear to me what, in the writer's mind, distinguishes "the other two types" described afterwards. Both involve an up-type quark, a down-type quark and a W. I would say that there are only two basic types of weak interaction (charged or neutral), and that each of them can involve either quarks or leptons. In summary, the section should be substantially rewritten. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 13:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't really understand what this statement is trying to say, because particles involved in the neutral current reaction can also be charged. Could anyone make it clearer?
"The first type is called the "charged current interaction", because the particles which interact through it carry an electric charge, and is responsible for the beta decay phenomenon."
-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 19:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The names "charged" or "neutral" are in fact related to the charge of the vector boson: interactions mediated by a W are charged, while interactions mediated by a Z are neutral. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 23:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I see that what I write above is in contradiction with a sentence in the charged current article, but I don't care. The point of that sentence is that, e.g., the fermionic current up->down (or electron->neutrino) involves a change of electric charge of -1 (or +1), and that's why it's called "charged current". However, in a gauge theory this is perfectly equivalent to saying that the vector boson associated to the interaction is charged. The statement "is incorrectly believed" reflects some personal quibble of one editor. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 00:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
In fact, the above is wrong: the charged current and the neutral current are not labeled such because of the charge of the bosons or the change of electric charge. If that were the case, they'd be called the "charged boson interaction" and the "neutral boson interaction." They are labeled by the electric charge held by the weak currents: the weak current of an electron and a neutrino has an electric charge of -1. The Weak current of an electron with an anti-electron has an electric charge of 0. The interaction is blind to the electric charge (it is after all a weak interaction not an electromagnetic one). This is further evidenced by the naming convention predating the concept of the weak bosons.
The press release of the 1979 Nobel prize for Glashow, Salam and Weinberg has some nice information for a general audience on the consequences of the weak interaction. Do you think we could we add a quote of some or all of this paragraph, or otherwise include this information somewhere in the article?
Although the weak interaction is much weaker than both the strong and the electromagnetic interactions, it is of great importance in many connections. The actual strength of the weak interaction is also of significance. The energy of the sun, all-important for life on earth, is produced when hydrogen fuses or burns into helium in a chain of nuclear reactions occurring in the interior of the sun. The first reaction in this chain, the transformation of hydrogen into heavy hydrogen (deuterium), is caused by the weak force. Without this force solar energy production would not be possible. Again, had the weak force been much stronger, the life span of the sun would have been too short for life to have had time to evolve on any planet. The weak interaction finds practical application in the radioactive elements used in medicine and technology, which are in general beta-radioactive, and in the beta-decay of a carbon isotope into nitrogen, which is the basis for the carbon-14 method for dating of organic archaeological remains.
— Press Release: The 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics [1]
-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 20:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed two recently-added sentences that sounded nonsensical:
it's very clear why quarks decay: they emit a virtual W boson and are converted in a lighter quark. That's indeed clearly explained the article. I wonder why the person who wrote that sentence thinks that "it may due to the Higgs mechanism". Before even thinking of reinstating the sentence, please explain that.
As we also explain in the article, the weak interaction affects all quarks and leptons (not just electrons). And what does it mean that electrons "govern electromagnetism"?
Also, the sentence about binding energy sounds fishy to me (to start with, force and energy are two different concepts!). Could the person who wrote it please elaborate on what it means, and provide references?
Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
says how they decay, not why. Why, as in what causes the decay, what triggers it? Consider why did George Mallory climb Mount Everest: "Because it's there.". Gah4 ( talk) 23:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)they emit a virtual W boson and are converted in a lighter quark
Recent edits (particularly by Stephen Poppitt) have brought to the forefront a couple of issues. Personally, I find that some of it amounts to a technical witchhunt, in the sense that we lose some important things: encyclopaedic tone, and readability in general. Consider this edit, for example. Quantum superpositions are pretty complicated, and really only useful for the expert reader (in my experience, degree level or above). I don't really think we need to aim the explanation of them to a much lower audience here. Summaries in a few words are likely to fail to get the point across - anything with quantum probabilities, etc, is likely to go over casual readers, and I dare say "(that is to say, it has a possibility of becoming any one of the three up-type quarks)" is actually more confusing. The casual reader can, as it stands, accept that there is something 'slightly weird' going on, and read further if he/she wants, else skip over. I think this point should be kept in mind. Similarly CP-parity violations, for example, needs (as it has been since I arrived) suitably excluded from the more understandable bits. Whilst you could spend all day explaining everything about it, this is not the place, and certainly not to try and bring it down to an elementary level. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 20:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The article states: "According to the electroweak theory, at very high energies, the universe has four massless gauge boson fields similar to the photon and a complex scalar Higgs field doublet". I don't think that is correct. The prediction of four massless gauge bosons at very high energies is not a part of the electroweak theory itself (or the Standard model) as far as I can tell. Dauto ( talk) 21:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm hoping to get this to GA standard in time for this round of the Wikicup, and that means starting the review process fairly soon. Are the any holes people can see in the coverage? Errors in the physics are clearly being addressed, and at least mostly have been. As far as teh imp[lications of weak decay, that's not mostly for this page - except giving links. Are there any pages that should be linked? Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 20:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The article looks to be in pretty good shape; however, there are several errors in the references:
Other than those details, I am impressed by the quality of the article. I think it does a fairly good job of explaining the more technical things to a lay audience. I am not entirely satisfied by the way the "Weak isospin" and "Weak hypercharge" subsections are presented. They just don't seem to flow very well, and I don't quite understand the subject matter in them and how it relates to the rest of the article (Although this could just be a lack of understanding on my behalf). It is not a large enough problem to prevent me from passing this article, but it should be addressed if this article goes up for FA review (which I hope it does). Overall, great job. -- Tea with toast (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Hi, I am uncomfortable with this sentence in the "Weak isospin" subsection:
In fact, weak isospin determines how particles interact with the SU(2) part of the electroweak interaction. Left-handed fermions have weak isospin of +-1/2, while right-handed fermions have weak isospin 0. As a result, right-handed fermions do not interact with W bosons. However, even right-handed fermions have non-zero hypercharge, therefore they do interact with Z bosons. In the sentence above we appear to be saying that, e.g., the interaction of a right-handed electron with a Z boson is not "weak interaction". This leads us back to the issue (discussed a few sections above) of what we really mean by weak interaction, as opposed to the modern description of electroweak interaction. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 09:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the production of deuterium in stars a result of the beta decay of Helium-2? (Whose more common decay mode is double proton emission, of course.) Hcobb ( talk) 01:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fundamental interaction which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 11:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
the way the section talks about higgs bosons is out of date with the main article about higgs bosons Higgs_boson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.42.5.57 ( talk) 03:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The article mentions fission as an example of weak interaction. As I understood it, it is the result of the strong interaction (liquid drop model) and electromagnetic repulsion of the protons. I don't count the beta decay in fission products as part of fission itself. Thermal neutron fission also depends on neutron energy levels in the nucleus. Is that related to weak interaction? Gah4 ( talk) 05:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Weak interaction/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Lacks references Snailwalker | talk 00:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 00:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 10:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I just want to thank all the editors who wrote and crafted this well-written introductory paragraph. Bearian ( talk) 18:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I join those who ask for a little more. (See sections "Some help here please" and others). I'm a pretty bright guy (I've been an invited guest lecturer at MIT in my field), but I'm not getting information here that helps me understand.
I think the problem is that the whole article is directed to "looking down" to the underlying quantum causes. The intro would be a lot clearer if it had a paragraph "looking up" to effects, maybe a list of the effects visible vis-a-vis the basic Bohr particles we're more familiar with. I think the starting point is just a list of phenomena:
the value of g_em ist given with : in the article Coupling_constant#Gauge_coupling, that is far more than the here mentioned 1/100! Ra-raisch ( talk) 21:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Weak interaction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
With Heisenberg's uncertainty a radius of action may be explained. At speed of light the range would be (using reduced Compton wave-length rC = λC / 2π):
Regarding kinetic energy and relativity the speed of light is not optimal for a long range:
but with max at the expected range of action may be calculated estimated:
This gives for (kg):
Ra-raisch ( talk) 20:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The article says that "A particularly extreme example is the weak-force decay of a free neutron, which takes about 15 minutes". Does this mean literally that the decay starts at a given time and takes 15 minutes or does it mean that free neutrons last for 15 minutes (presumably on average) before decaying, and the speed of the actual decay is quicker? If it's actually a 15 minute decay process, how is that observed and what is going on to take so long? If it's not, the article would benefit from clarification of speed of decay versus time before decay. 85.211.230.100 ( talk) 12:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused - how is the weak interaction an interaction? It seems to me that there's only one particle at the start of any "weak interaction", so what's it interacting with? Like, beta-decay, you start with a neutron, which then emits a W- boson which subsequently decays. So, what's the neutron interacting with initially? What am I missing? XinaNicole ( talk) 17:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
May citations on experimental results be provided?
For leptons, is there any central tendency for a neutrino to absorb a W boson at a particular phase in oscillation?
For quarks, are CKM matrix elements an aggregation of varieties of interactions taking and, consequently, the observed flavour change? For example, under beta decay, a down quark changes to an up quark and this interaction contributes to the (0,0) CKM cell value? Are elements of the CKM matrix useful in designating the probability a charged-current interaction changes a quark to a particular flavour, as described in the section on interaction types? May kinds of interactions be listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.152.130 ( talk) 02:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Weak interaction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Weak interaction has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
The process
cannot happen without another potential! It's the same as with
which violates energy and momentum conservation. That's obvious if going to the electron's rest system! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.17.78 ( talk) 03:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The section on violation of symmetry states, in a kind of unclear (contextual) way, that the weak force violate CP symmetry. This is not the case. The 'bare' weak force preserves CP symmetry, whereas the weak force in the SM because of the SU(2)xSU(3) structure violates it. 83.89.32.26 ( talk) 16:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering what use the authors of this page expect the page to be. The level of physics knowledge needed to comprehend this page is beyond that of anyone who would need to look up the subject of the page. I'd tackle trying to write a basic explanation, but I'm not a physicist, and would be afraid of making some basic errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.233.70 ( talk) 17:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. Yes, it is extremely complex, however, in this format I will be able, should i choose to, and see it important enough, to follow the data and links, until I have as complete an understanding of the matter as I wish to. I'm sure there are simple explanations on the web for anyone seeking that; and perhaps a simple explanation as an aid would be good, however, I believe wikipedia's format allows anyone who wishes to have a true understanding of something to do so, and it should stay that way; not be (excuse the expression) "dumbed down" for the sake of simplicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.9.223 ( talk) 19:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I think he may be a Wikipedia contributor. I don't think he uses it as a "Reference Book" but as a platform for him to share his knowledge on this particular subject TappyDoggy365 ( talk) 13:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The diproton article claims this is the force responsible for stellar fusion (limiting the rate). Why? It'd be nice to mention that here. -- Andrew 05:25, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Weak interactions occuour in stellar fusion because elements with more than one proton require a neutron to stop the protons from repelling each other with their + charges. Neutrons mutually attract the protons with strong force, and if weak interactions didn't take place, elements would be unable to fuse in stars.
The statement that the weak force is one of the four fundamental forces cannot be true at the same time as the statement that there is an electroweak force which the weak force is an aspect of. Could someone please clarify this? -- Etxrge 20:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
-- Rmrfstar 04:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I suggest replacing "the four fundamental interactions of nature" with "the fundamental interactions of nature". A minor change but it is technically correct and is not going to cause any confusion. Mtpaley ( talk) 23:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
This is because, under current conditions in the known universe, the weak force behaves as if it were a separate force to all others (strong, electromagnetic, gravity). However, under certain conditions, the weak force and the electromagnetic force behave in the same way. Because of this, physicists view the weak nuclear force as part of an 'electroweak' force; however it is useful when applied to ideas concerning the universe as it currently stands to consider the weak force as a separate force to the others.
Can anyone provide a little history? Who first proposed the idea of this force and when? -- Mrnatural 02:51, 12 Jun, 2005 (UTC)
Should not this article be titled, "Weak interaction" as Strong interaction is? -- Rmrfstar 7 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)
Fundamental interaction says weak nuclear force is 1025 times weaker than strong nuclear force. Weak nuclear force says it is just is 109 weaker. What is correct? Miraceti 13:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Does the weak nuclear force generate an attractive or repulsive force between two particles? The other 3 forces generate attractions and/or repulions, so shouldn't the weak nuclear force do the same thing, especially if it is supposed to be similar to the EM force?
Proton decay states that free neutrons decay in approximately 10 minutes due to weak interaction. Can someone add some details about this? Confuted 17:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) 12:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
-- Xerxes 18:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Which pairs of weakly interacting particles attract each other and which repel each other via weak interaction? Is there any charge associated with weak interaction (such as electric charge in electromagnetism, or mass in gravity) that could be used to determine whether there will be attraction or repulsion between the particles caused by weak interaction? -- 193.198.16.211 ( talk) 19:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems impossible (or merely abstract) for anything to be more than one time less than another, yet the article states "the typical field strength is 1011 times less than the strength of the electromagnetic force and some 1013 times less than that of the strong force..." (A few statements on this page also use similar language.)
Though the electromagnetic force may be 1011 stronger than the typical field strength, that equation does not work in reverse. To simplify, field x is twice as strong as field y (x=2y), but you would not say that y is twice weaker (y=x-2x), you would say y is half weaker (y=.5x).
Apparently, the numbers that are hinted at in the article are extremely small fractions of the numbers being compared, but that is not what the language states. There must be a more accurate way of stating what is meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.36.94 ( talk) 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
had to fix a few glaring errors in this page, I'm surprised noone noticed them before, especially under 'properties' section... someone claimed that "It is the only action which violates parity symmetry P (because it almost never acts on left-handed particles). It is not the only one which violates CP (CP Symmetry)."... hmmm its a good thing they are wrong because if that were the case, then the sun would not shine, and we would not exist. the weak force acts ONLY on left handed particles, and right handed ANTIparticles. someone needs to go back to physics class before they start writing wiki articles. fixed a few typos too, but didn't get to all of them...could someone who actually has a degree try to clean up this very important article please? - donnie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.121.213 ( talk) 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
the violation of symmetry section badly needs cleanup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.121.213 ( talk) 20:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The arrow on the neutrino should point in the opposite direction. The W particle is about 100 times more massive than a neutron, which makes this interaction seem kind of ridiculous without a weird interpretation of the neutrino as traveling backward in time. Look at the neutron decay diagram referenced by the discussion page for beta decay for a correct treatment. -- 213.235.192.234 ( talk) 17:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I got it fixed at the Graphic Labs. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The arrow is backward or the particle is wrong. You either need a neutrino moving backward in time or an antineutrino moving forward in time. Right now, the picture shows an antineutrino moving backward in time, which is the equivalent of a neutrino going forward in time. The decay shown would therefore violate the conservation of lepton number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.25.83 ( talk) 22:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
And if it were switched around, other people would complain. Your point? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
In the article, "the emission of electrons by protons or positrons by neutrons in atomic nuclei" probably does not obey the charge conservation law. Or am I wrong? -- FDominec ( talk) 20:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are right (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay). Could anyone correct this? -- 12 July 2010 (UTC) --
"Its most familiar effect is beta decay (or the emission of electrons by protons or positrons by neutrons in atomic nuclei) and the associated radioactivity"
the electron and positron has switched places
should be:
"emission of positrons by protons (forming neutrons) or electrons by neutrons (forming protons) in atomic nuclei" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.252.22.178 ( talk) 06:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Should the Z boson be mentioned in the weak interaction section? It seems to me that this is a prediction of electroweak theory, not a weak exchange particle. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 10:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this section should be made more accessible to the non-expert. For what it's worth, an excellent discussion of the weak interaction (and of particle physics and the fundamental forces) can be found at www.learner.org/courses/physics. This discussion is aimed at the non-scientist, yet goes into a reasonable amount of detail. (And, no, I am not associated in any way with the site or the people who developed it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davem62 ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I've attempted to make the article easier to understand, mainly by a) simplifying the odd bit of language in a minor way and b) some reorganisation so the understandable is not mixed with the 'incomprehensible' (from a non-expert). I'm aware I may have introduced errors, but if you could pause before turning simplifications (none of which I believe are too extreme) into complicated but more precise language, this might help. Thanks. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 13:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
32.178.171.35 ( talk) 03:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Suggest adding the following link back to the definition of the 4 fundamental forces to aid the novice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_fundamental_forces perhaps via hyperlink at "forces or interactions". - Nick 8 March 2011 32.178.171.35 ( talk) 03:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph added by editor Poppit:
First of all, the weak force affects both quarks and leptons. Second, quarks and leptons are elementary particles. What does Poppit mean when he writes that "individual quarks" are "bound together" by the weak force? Ptrslv72 ( talk) 16:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, this other sentence is also misleading:
in principle a real W boson can decay with equal probability in any charged-lepton+neutrino pair. The probability for decays into quark pairs are more complicated due to the CKM mixing, but the total probability for decays into quarks is roughly twice the total probability for decays into leptons. However, we are talking here of a virtual W boson emitted in the decay of a real quark. Only the decay channels in which the sum of the masses of the decay products is smaller than the mass of the parent particle are allowed. This is why a down quark can only decay in an up quark plus electron and neutrino, while the decay of a charm quark might also involve a muon (or be purely hadronic). The idea that we can decompose the decay in 1) a quark decaying in another quark and a W boson with 2) the W subsequently decaying in leptons (or lighter quarks) as if they were independent processes is too simplistic. Ptrslv72 ( talk) 17:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I also notice that the classification of "three basic types of weak interaction" in the section Interaction types is a mess. The first sentence states that the first type is the neutral-current interaction, and then there are two types of charged-current interaction. However, the next sentence says that the first type is the charged-current interaction of leptons. This is contradictory. Furthermore, it is not clear to me what, in the writer's mind, distinguishes "the other two types" described afterwards. Both involve an up-type quark, a down-type quark and a W. I would say that there are only two basic types of weak interaction (charged or neutral), and that each of them can involve either quarks or leptons. In summary, the section should be substantially rewritten. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 13:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't really understand what this statement is trying to say, because particles involved in the neutral current reaction can also be charged. Could anyone make it clearer?
"The first type is called the "charged current interaction", because the particles which interact through it carry an electric charge, and is responsible for the beta decay phenomenon."
-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 19:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The names "charged" or "neutral" are in fact related to the charge of the vector boson: interactions mediated by a W are charged, while interactions mediated by a Z are neutral. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 23:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I see that what I write above is in contradiction with a sentence in the charged current article, but I don't care. The point of that sentence is that, e.g., the fermionic current up->down (or electron->neutrino) involves a change of electric charge of -1 (or +1), and that's why it's called "charged current". However, in a gauge theory this is perfectly equivalent to saying that the vector boson associated to the interaction is charged. The statement "is incorrectly believed" reflects some personal quibble of one editor. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 00:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
In fact, the above is wrong: the charged current and the neutral current are not labeled such because of the charge of the bosons or the change of electric charge. If that were the case, they'd be called the "charged boson interaction" and the "neutral boson interaction." They are labeled by the electric charge held by the weak currents: the weak current of an electron and a neutrino has an electric charge of -1. The Weak current of an electron with an anti-electron has an electric charge of 0. The interaction is blind to the electric charge (it is after all a weak interaction not an electromagnetic one). This is further evidenced by the naming convention predating the concept of the weak bosons.
The press release of the 1979 Nobel prize for Glashow, Salam and Weinberg has some nice information for a general audience on the consequences of the weak interaction. Do you think we could we add a quote of some or all of this paragraph, or otherwise include this information somewhere in the article?
Although the weak interaction is much weaker than both the strong and the electromagnetic interactions, it is of great importance in many connections. The actual strength of the weak interaction is also of significance. The energy of the sun, all-important for life on earth, is produced when hydrogen fuses or burns into helium in a chain of nuclear reactions occurring in the interior of the sun. The first reaction in this chain, the transformation of hydrogen into heavy hydrogen (deuterium), is caused by the weak force. Without this force solar energy production would not be possible. Again, had the weak force been much stronger, the life span of the sun would have been too short for life to have had time to evolve on any planet. The weak interaction finds practical application in the radioactive elements used in medicine and technology, which are in general beta-radioactive, and in the beta-decay of a carbon isotope into nitrogen, which is the basis for the carbon-14 method for dating of organic archaeological remains.
— Press Release: The 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics [1]
-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 20:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed two recently-added sentences that sounded nonsensical:
it's very clear why quarks decay: they emit a virtual W boson and are converted in a lighter quark. That's indeed clearly explained the article. I wonder why the person who wrote that sentence thinks that "it may due to the Higgs mechanism". Before even thinking of reinstating the sentence, please explain that.
As we also explain in the article, the weak interaction affects all quarks and leptons (not just electrons). And what does it mean that electrons "govern electromagnetism"?
Also, the sentence about binding energy sounds fishy to me (to start with, force and energy are two different concepts!). Could the person who wrote it please elaborate on what it means, and provide references?
Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
says how they decay, not why. Why, as in what causes the decay, what triggers it? Consider why did George Mallory climb Mount Everest: "Because it's there.". Gah4 ( talk) 23:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)they emit a virtual W boson and are converted in a lighter quark
Recent edits (particularly by Stephen Poppitt) have brought to the forefront a couple of issues. Personally, I find that some of it amounts to a technical witchhunt, in the sense that we lose some important things: encyclopaedic tone, and readability in general. Consider this edit, for example. Quantum superpositions are pretty complicated, and really only useful for the expert reader (in my experience, degree level or above). I don't really think we need to aim the explanation of them to a much lower audience here. Summaries in a few words are likely to fail to get the point across - anything with quantum probabilities, etc, is likely to go over casual readers, and I dare say "(that is to say, it has a possibility of becoming any one of the three up-type quarks)" is actually more confusing. The casual reader can, as it stands, accept that there is something 'slightly weird' going on, and read further if he/she wants, else skip over. I think this point should be kept in mind. Similarly CP-parity violations, for example, needs (as it has been since I arrived) suitably excluded from the more understandable bits. Whilst you could spend all day explaining everything about it, this is not the place, and certainly not to try and bring it down to an elementary level. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 20:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The article states: "According to the electroweak theory, at very high energies, the universe has four massless gauge boson fields similar to the photon and a complex scalar Higgs field doublet". I don't think that is correct. The prediction of four massless gauge bosons at very high energies is not a part of the electroweak theory itself (or the Standard model) as far as I can tell. Dauto ( talk) 21:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm hoping to get this to GA standard in time for this round of the Wikicup, and that means starting the review process fairly soon. Are the any holes people can see in the coverage? Errors in the physics are clearly being addressed, and at least mostly have been. As far as teh imp[lications of weak decay, that's not mostly for this page - except giving links. Are there any pages that should be linked? Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 20:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The article looks to be in pretty good shape; however, there are several errors in the references:
Other than those details, I am impressed by the quality of the article. I think it does a fairly good job of explaining the more technical things to a lay audience. I am not entirely satisfied by the way the "Weak isospin" and "Weak hypercharge" subsections are presented. They just don't seem to flow very well, and I don't quite understand the subject matter in them and how it relates to the rest of the article (Although this could just be a lack of understanding on my behalf). It is not a large enough problem to prevent me from passing this article, but it should be addressed if this article goes up for FA review (which I hope it does). Overall, great job. -- Tea with toast (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Hi, I am uncomfortable with this sentence in the "Weak isospin" subsection:
In fact, weak isospin determines how particles interact with the SU(2) part of the electroweak interaction. Left-handed fermions have weak isospin of +-1/2, while right-handed fermions have weak isospin 0. As a result, right-handed fermions do not interact with W bosons. However, even right-handed fermions have non-zero hypercharge, therefore they do interact with Z bosons. In the sentence above we appear to be saying that, e.g., the interaction of a right-handed electron with a Z boson is not "weak interaction". This leads us back to the issue (discussed a few sections above) of what we really mean by weak interaction, as opposed to the modern description of electroweak interaction. Cheers, Ptrslv72 ( talk) 09:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the production of deuterium in stars a result of the beta decay of Helium-2? (Whose more common decay mode is double proton emission, of course.) Hcobb ( talk) 01:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fundamental interaction which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 11:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
the way the section talks about higgs bosons is out of date with the main article about higgs bosons Higgs_boson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.42.5.57 ( talk) 03:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The article mentions fission as an example of weak interaction. As I understood it, it is the result of the strong interaction (liquid drop model) and electromagnetic repulsion of the protons. I don't count the beta decay in fission products as part of fission itself. Thermal neutron fission also depends on neutron energy levels in the nucleus. Is that related to weak interaction? Gah4 ( talk) 05:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Weak interaction/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Lacks references Snailwalker | talk 00:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 00:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 10:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I just want to thank all the editors who wrote and crafted this well-written introductory paragraph. Bearian ( talk) 18:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I join those who ask for a little more. (See sections "Some help here please" and others). I'm a pretty bright guy (I've been an invited guest lecturer at MIT in my field), but I'm not getting information here that helps me understand.
I think the problem is that the whole article is directed to "looking down" to the underlying quantum causes. The intro would be a lot clearer if it had a paragraph "looking up" to effects, maybe a list of the effects visible vis-a-vis the basic Bohr particles we're more familiar with. I think the starting point is just a list of phenomena:
the value of g_em ist given with : in the article Coupling_constant#Gauge_coupling, that is far more than the here mentioned 1/100! Ra-raisch ( talk) 21:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Weak interaction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
With Heisenberg's uncertainty a radius of action may be explained. At speed of light the range would be (using reduced Compton wave-length rC = λC / 2π):
Regarding kinetic energy and relativity the speed of light is not optimal for a long range:
but with max at the expected range of action may be calculated estimated:
This gives for (kg):
Ra-raisch ( talk) 20:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The article says that "A particularly extreme example is the weak-force decay of a free neutron, which takes about 15 minutes". Does this mean literally that the decay starts at a given time and takes 15 minutes or does it mean that free neutrons last for 15 minutes (presumably on average) before decaying, and the speed of the actual decay is quicker? If it's actually a 15 minute decay process, how is that observed and what is going on to take so long? If it's not, the article would benefit from clarification of speed of decay versus time before decay. 85.211.230.100 ( talk) 12:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused - how is the weak interaction an interaction? It seems to me that there's only one particle at the start of any "weak interaction", so what's it interacting with? Like, beta-decay, you start with a neutron, which then emits a W- boson which subsequently decays. So, what's the neutron interacting with initially? What am I missing? XinaNicole ( talk) 17:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
May citations on experimental results be provided?
For leptons, is there any central tendency for a neutrino to absorb a W boson at a particular phase in oscillation?
For quarks, are CKM matrix elements an aggregation of varieties of interactions taking and, consequently, the observed flavour change? For example, under beta decay, a down quark changes to an up quark and this interaction contributes to the (0,0) CKM cell value? Are elements of the CKM matrix useful in designating the probability a charged-current interaction changes a quark to a particular flavour, as described in the section on interaction types? May kinds of interactions be listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.152.130 ( talk) 02:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)