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)
I certainly think the first threetwo (
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.
No, a force carrier is not necessarily a gauge boson. By the way, the present article has a thick Standard Model bias, whereas force carriers are ubiquitous wherever any kind of QFT can be found. There are
phonons and other kinds of
excitons, for example.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
05:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
A discoverer of any one of them should be awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics or in Magical Arts whichever seems more apropriate.
Jim03:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
I propose merging
Static forces and virtual-particle exchange here. Both articles discuss forces arising from the exchange of particles. The 'static' in the title of the source article seems largely irrelevant. The source article has too many equations to be easily readable, and a lot of it is unreferenced.
I agree that these articles overlap and I don't see a clear value for both. "Static forces..." is much stronger but I agree with your implicit choice of "Force carrier" as the merged title.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
16:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)reply