Timeline for Can bosons have anti-particles?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Oct 15, 2023 at 21:15 | history | bounty ended | Nightrider | ||
| S Oct 15, 2023 at 21:15 | history | notice removed | Nightrider | ||
| Oct 10, 2023 at 8:39 | answer | added | OON | timeline score: 7 | |
| S Oct 9, 2023 at 19:40 | history | bounty started | Nightrider | ||
| S Oct 9, 2023 at 19:40 | history | notice added | Nightrider | Authoritative reference needed | |
| Jun 20, 2023 at 17:17 | comment | added | R. Romero | I've heard Neil Degrasse-Tyson argue that Bosons have no anti-particles. Then I thought of $W^{\pm}$ bosons as well as mesons and their anti-particles. A friend suggested even if charge switches signs and mass is preserved, if they don't annihilate then they aren't anti-particles. I didn't know whether $W^{\pm}$ can annihilate each other so maybe I was in fact mistaken. Now I'm uncertain. | |
| Jan 30, 2019 at 22:47 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited tags
|
| Jan 30, 2019 at 21:31 | answer | added | Deschele Schilder | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 25, 2015 at 16:31 | vote | accept | highsciguy | ||
| May 16, 2015 at 20:22 | comment | added | Siva | Taylor's point seems to be centered on the following idea "Bosons operate under different laws and can be created singly. This is a crucial distinction and is in nature of being either matter particles or force carriers." (which I simply don't understand) | |
| May 16, 2015 at 20:19 | comment | added | Siva | By definition charge conjugation $C$ is that operator which swaps particles and anti-particles. And I have to agree with @innisfree. | |
| May 16, 2015 at 13:59 | answer | added | Paganini | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 15, 2015 at 19:59 | comment | added | Sebastian Riese | I guess Geoff Taylor has a very non-standard viewpoint. Don't let him confuse you. | |
| May 15, 2015 at 19:19 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/599293152101535744 | ||
| May 15, 2015 at 14:21 | comment | added | innisfree | I can't think of any sensible definition of antiparticle under which it's a mistake to say bosons could have antiparticles (you could say anti-particles are only fermions by definition, but why would you say that?!) | |
| May 15, 2015 at 14:17 | history | edited | highsciguy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 130 characters in body
|
| May 15, 2015 at 14:14 | comment | added | highsciguy | For me, it is the C/CP-conjugate of the corresponding particle state. Of course, C and CP are not exact symmetries of the Standard Model but, if this is an issue, I would set the corresponding CP-violating phases to zero for that matter. Which other definition would be sensible? | |
| May 15, 2015 at 14:11 | history | edited | innisfree | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added quote, spag
|
| May 15, 2015 at 14:09 | comment | added | ACuriousMind♦ | Well, this crucially depends on your definition of anti-particle. | |
| May 15, 2015 at 13:49 | history | asked | highsciguy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |