Mistakes in the Wikipedia figure on elementary particle interactions

Question

There are some mistakes I think in the figure of Wikipedia on particle interactions in standard model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model#Alternative_presentations_of_the_fields

It is more precise if we represent the particles in terms of left-handed doublet or right-handed singlet --- question --- are there such cartoon figures available that correctly reflect the elementary particle interactions?

Some Mistakes:

1. The $Z$ boson does interact with the photon $\gamma$ through the tree level with two $W$ bosons -- but this figure shows no such interactions.

2. The $Z$ boson does interact with the $Z$ boson through the tree level with two $W$ bosons -- but this figure shows no such interactions.

3. The photon $\gamma$ does interact with the photon $\gamma$ through the tree level with two $W$ bosons -- but this figure shows no such interactions.

e.g. To justify the mistakes 1 and 2 and 3, we can take X and Y to be $Z$ and or the photon $\gamma$, the tree level interaction shows img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/9W7NL.png" alt="For mistakes 1 and 2 and 3, we can take X and Y to be $\gamma$ " />

1. Moreover, I am not sure how The charged leptons electrons interact with neutrinos -- it only occurs when we have the leptons in the doublet of weak SU(2)? In that case, it is more precise if we represent the particles in terms of left-handed doublet or right-handed singlet (so we can see what left-handed or right-handed particles interacting with --- are there such cartoon figures available that correctly reflect the elementary particle interactions?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-30 15:27 (UTC), posted by SE-user annie marie heart

Comments

Cf. this. Basically it is tricky to represent quartic couplings, but the closed loop off W does represent 1. Sticking a loop on Z and γ would create more misconceptions than it would resolve. When it comes to fermion chiralities, extra baroque complications again would not explain anything that the reader does not already know. This is a crib-sheet summary, not a textbook, but I agree it takes a special warped mind avoidant of QFT to make / read, such.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-30 15:27 (UTC), posted by SE-user Cosmas Zachos

---

thanks - i probe more -- It is more precise if we represent the particles in terms of left-handed doublet or right-handed singlet --- question --- are there such cartoon figures available that correctly reflect the elementary particle interactions? --- it will be nice such figures are available...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-30 15:27 (UTC), posted by SE-user annie marie heart

---

Never seen such, and I indicated that you then have to split the full quarks coupling to the gluons and their left-chiral components coupling to the W, and as for the Z... a disaster. Such pictures are made and enjoyed only by crowds prizing complication. Recall "flavor basis" neutrinos are doubly misleading as well... Hard to see how to save such stunts...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-30 15:27 (UTC), posted by SE-user Cosmas Zachos

---

Photons don't interact. Higher order processes would involve a photon decay that is prohibited for massless particles by Special Relativity, because they don't experience time. This is exactly how the neutrino oscillation has proved that neutrinos are massive.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-30 15:27 (UTC), posted by SE-user safesphere

---

@safesphere, there is a tree level with four gauge bosons, photon-photon-W+-W- check Feynman rule.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-30 15:27 (UTC), posted by SE-user annie marie heart

---

You are missing my point. The rule you are referring to is forbidden for photons by Special Relativity. I know this is commonly misunderstood, but the "photon-photon physics" is a misconception. Photons cannot decay or be absorbed by non-existing "virtual particles".

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2020-11-30 15:27 (UTC), posted by SE-user safesphere