Talk:Force carrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

I'd say that this article should be merged with Gauge boson, but, actually, it might be interesting to include cases of force carriers that are not gauge bosons (e.g. the mesons in some effective field theories of hadrons). —Matt McIrvin 03:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Gauge Bosons

Someone should say, in this page and the Gauge boson page, that force carrier particles are the same thing as gauge bosons, if this is correct. scienceman 01:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible merge/clean-up needed?

We seem to have four related articles with a common term:

We'll have to put some thought on this matter to see what the preferred direction is? --Sadi Carnot 12:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly think the first three two (Exchange particle redirects to Force carrier) should be merged. Also, I think that they shouldn't be limited to fundamental particles—they should also mention that, for instance, electrons in solids interact by exchanging phonons. And I agree with Matt McIrvin about mentioning mesons.
Somewhere I'd love to see an explanation of how attractive forces can be mediated by particle exchange. —JerryFriedman 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
To start with, I just found http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html . —JerryFriedman 20:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
That first two articles are merged now. Correct them if I did something wrong.

—Nethac DIU, would never stop to talk here—
17:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning: talk merged with "Messenger particle" talk

Splitting "Graviton". a particle carrying "gravitational force" which turned out to be a psudoforce in Einsteinian physics into its three subtypes

  1. Inertion - carries the straight inertial force
  2. Centrifugon - carries the centrifugal force
  3. Coriolison - carries the Coriolis force

[edit] Three subtypes of Graviton

A discoverer of any one of them should be awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics or in Magical Arts whichever seems more apropriate. Jim 03:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you just make up these names? If not, please cite your source. Lack of Google hits makes me suspicious. —Keenan Pepper
Hi Keenan, I made them long time ago since I consider calling the gravitational force a fundamental force unfair to Enstein. Also it's misleading to astrophysicists. Some hope that the gravitational force becomes a fundamental force once again and it seems to confuse them a lot. The worst thing is that it prevents progress in astronomy ever since the applied mathematicians started to explain physics to astrophysicists and Einstein. Of course no one requires mathematicians, especially applied ones, to understand physics but astrophysicists rather should. So I hope it's my contribution to being fair to Einstein and to the education of astrophysicists. Jim
Jim - Your terms are neologisms and so prohibited under WP:OR. Also it would be nice if you knew something on this topic. Gravitons do exist in general relativity!!! You are correct in that they do not transmit gravitation itself. Instead gravitons transmit information on changes in the gravitational field. It may not be the same thing, but it is still important and physical.
I have already editted the article appropriately. --EMS | Talk 16:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi EMS, I propose to add to your comment about graviton the following text:
  1. ...
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. ... in which it resembles more a phonon type boson than gluon, photon, or W and Z bosons (all of which carry fundamental forces). Jim 11:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)