Talk:Force carrier

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)

Intermediate Particle

Intermediate particle links here, but no explanation is given for that terminology. What about it is "intermediate"? Are all force carriers Intermediate bosons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.169.219 (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Are small energies large?

I intended to complain about the poor state of the article, but looking at “At sufficiently large energies, ” concluded that it is futile. Nothing good can come from a talk-page discussion where watchers tolerate (or make) such edits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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.

There is also a large overlap between these articles and Virtual particle, but in my opinion that article has a different enough viewpoint, so that a merging with it is not useful. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

Hmmm, I won't lie, I think the two share a fair overlap but not necessarily to the point that I'd agree a merger. Varsect (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Varsect What specific content do you think belongs in "Static forces and virtual particle exchange" but not in "force carrier" and vice versa? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm removing the tags as I don't have the time in near future to do this (even if there was a consensus). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)