Talk:Electroweak interaction

message: Should someone point out that this force has been shown to be identical to the strong force at high enough energy states? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.78.2 (talk) 6 March 2002
:Duh?!!! Thaz something new to me.. can you state some external websites for reference plz? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.211.62.220 (talk) 6 March 2002
Identical isn't perhaps the best description. It is believed to unify with strong force to form the hyperweak force at high enough energies in the same way as the elctromagnetic and weak forces unify to make the electroweak force itself. Anyway, this is all somewhat speculative as I don't think there is any fully developed theory of how this works (at least that is successful in producing other aspects of the SM). Additionally, I belive supersymmetry is required to make this unification take place, and that in itself is still a hotly debated area with little or no experimental backup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcobb (talk • contribs) 22:58, 20 February 2004
:The unification with the strong force is the subject of grand unified theories.  Maybe just a "see also"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.149.53 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2004
:Here's one: see electronuclear force. — Herbee 13:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unification with Strong Interaction 

message: Shouldn't this article be entitled 'Electroweak theory' (or something along those lines) instead of 'Electroweak force '? The other fundamental forces have separate pages for  the forces and the theories describing those forces. MP   (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article

message: If I am not mistaken, there should be discussion of experimental evidence.  The article posits the union of the electromagnetic interaction with the weak interaction at energies of 100 GeV.  Energies of 200 GeV are not uncommon in accelerators these days.  The Tevatron at Fermilab reaches 2 TeV, and the Large Hadron Collider will reach 14 TeV (combined energy). Hu 05:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that motion. On the QGP page, it says "The theory of weak interactions has been tested and found correct to a few parts in a thousand". Examples, anyone? Wikipedia brown 06:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experimental evidence 

message: Would someone be willing to make up at least a tenative to-do list for this article? Its kind of a shame that Katie Holmes had a featured article on the main page, but this article, based on Nobel prize winning research is still a stub. I'd do it, but I'm afraid I'm woefully unqualified, being only an undergraduate, with limited experience in this specific segement of high-energy physics. -Davepetr 06:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least, someone could write something about Quantum flavordynamics (QFD). I think that Electroweak Theory = QED + QFD. I do not know what is the current status of QFD... Urvabara 10:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As a layman I'd like to know how the forces can be unified when different carriers are employed for EM and WNF. --Belg4mit (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: To-do List?

message: I guess I should also point out that, as it stands, the article implies that the Electroweak theory (EWT) is a theory of the unified electromagnetic and weak interactions. That's an extremely common misconception. Correct would be to call it the unified theory of the electromagnetic and weak interactions. What's the difference? It is an unified theory in the sense that describes both interactions in one single self-consistent framework, but the theory still requires two different coupling constants and as such does not constitute a unification of interactions in the same sense that the term is used when talking about grand unified theory (GUT). Unlike EWT, GUT models do indeed unify three interaction (electromagnetic, weak, and strong) as three different aspects of a single interaction. only one coupling constant is needed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauto (talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unified theory of Eletroweak Interactions

message: How is a hot Universe different than hot matter in a universe? Does the entire universe need to be hot in order to unify the forces or is it enough for only the part of the universe inside a box to be hot in order to unify the forces inside a box?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.215.43 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "hot universe" refers to a situation where the entire universe contains particles that are "hot" (in this case, posessing energies above the electroweak unification scale). You are correct in noting that any finite region satisfying this condition would also have unification-type behavior occur within that region. That's more or less how particle accelerators attempt to study it (you can consider the colliding particles as producing a very small region in which this condition is satisfied, though there are many other ways of looking at it that are also valid). The whole-universe case is interesting because we're reasonably sure our universe went through a period where it was this hot, which may have left some detectable signature or imprint that tells us about the exact nature of the unification. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hot Universe? 

message: Would anyone like to create a redirect from electroweak unification?  70.247.169.197 (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: The article needs more on the history of this theory, e.g., what was the first paper written on it and when did it appear?  What precursor work was done?  What persons/groups were "also-rans"?  The theory is part of the Standard Model now, but were/are there any objections to it?  Etc.  --96.233.94.233 (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on history 

message: There is a reference to a W0 boson in this article, which is should be a Z0 boson, surely. Just checking in here before I fix it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.29.1 (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not "fix" it; it is OK as is. If you read the article, you will see that the W0 mixes with the B0 to produce the Z0 and the photon. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove reference to W0 

message: in the section After electroweak symmetry breaking, the quadratic terms L(K) was including mass terms, which are repeated in the terms L(HV) and L(Y). But they are added up in the first formula. Am I right?--Haojian (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I say that, the mass terms in L_K are interactions between particle fields and Higgs field, in which the Higgs field was regarded as constant and then was packed into the mass values, so contain only two particle fields; on the other hand, L_HV and L_Y contain SAME terms in which the Higgs field was regarded as one of fields, so these teams contain more than two fields?--Haojian (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

text: This is after symmetry breaking, so the masses were established via the Higgs mechanism, and there is now the "seperate" Higgs field.-Dilaton (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The fields can be separate, but the teams are still identity?--Haojian (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it add same teams twice? 

message: I am missing HWW and HZZ interactions from the formula as is stands.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.183.103.17 (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved your comment to the end of the list, as per WP instructions.  Indeed, such interactions are also present, but "contains" does not mean "contains only".  Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in <math>{\cal L}_{HV}</math>?