Talk:Force carrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

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)

gravity[edit]

i always thought gravity is because all the molecules our planets and so on exists of want to exchange with other bigger mass and therefore gravity exists is that wrong?

Gauge Bosons[edit]

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)

Possible merge/clean-up needed?[edit]

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)

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

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

Three subtypes of Graviton[edit]

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)