Talk:Weinberg angle

.

Running

Does the expression, the 'running' of the angle, refer to renormalisation? If so should we link to it? --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. linas (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technical

I think a nontechnical introductory paragraph would be sufficient, leaving the rest of the article as it is. Is 'weak mixing angle' the same as the general term 'mixing angle', i.e. for all particles? Lostart (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of great importance to the amateur physics reader would be a pair of sentences that started

If this angle were zero, then ...
If the angle were larger than observed, then ...

Fjados (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"Mixing angle" is a general term which refer to any rotation angle that links the "base states" (for lack of a better word) of something into the eignenstates of something. The Cabbibo angle is another such mixing angle, but it's never referred to as the "weak mixing angle" (indeed the Cabbibo angle is a quark mixing angle). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Should it be call Weinberg-Salam Angle? Since Salam also had contributed. It would be appropriate to move this page as Weinberg-Salam Angle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironboy11 (talk • contribs)

No one calls it the Weinberg–Salam angle, so the answer to that question is no. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The modern name is "weak mixing angle", so W!, as stated. Old timers learned it from Weinberg's paper and so have referred it as such forever, without confusion; especially since it was originally introduced by Glashow, instead, in 1961, at the very least. It's best to stick to mainstream usage. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

g'

Could someone explain the meaning of g' in two words if it is not the strong charge. The mere refer to SU(2) and U(1) doesn't tell me anything. Ra-raisch (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the "strong". The hypercharge U(1) has absolutely, resolutely, finally, nothing to do with the strong/color coupling.... What explanation would you have in mind? I'l throw in a link to Weak hypercharge. Basically, what e is to the photon field A_μ 'before' the advent of the SM, so in the mid 60s, g' is to the B_μ field... Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, that is splendid now. Ra-raisch (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Z and Z0

Is the Z Boson the same as the Z0 Boson indicated in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.48.159 (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. The 0 represents that the Z boson has neutral charge. Datolo12 (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]