Difference between "Boson" and "Gauge Boson"? --- Isn't that a bit like asking the difference between fruit and apples?
-How about including theoretical gauge bosons such as gravitons?- (Nevermind, but maybe it should be included in the main summary?)
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Force Carrier Particles
editSomeone should say, in this page and the Force carrier page, that force carrier particles are the same thing as gauge bosons, if this is correct. scienceman 01:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Proximity for Weak Interaction
edit"The conflict between this idea and experimental evidence that the weak interaction has a very short range requires further theoretical insight." Excuse my ignorance, but is this because of quantum gravity? Even if we don't exactly know the answer, why does the proximity of certain gauge bosons affect weak interactions? I'm just trying to understand this from a layman's point of view. --71.199.2.101 (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Massive Gauge boson
editIt is stated that due to gauge invariance that gauge bosons need to be massless (since they violate gauge symmetry)- this is incorrect though since gauge symmetries are not 'real' symmetries like space-time symmetries. I believe the real reason we want to start with massless gauge bosons is because unitarity is violated by massive gauge bosons at some high energy. This point has been addressed by nima arkani-hamed. I don't understand all the details though so I won't change the article itself, but someone should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.52.220 (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- gauge symmetries are real. Dauto (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
rough correspondence
edit"The three W and Z bosons correspond (roughly) to the three generators of SU(2) in GWS theory."
Can someone explain the "roughly" to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.73.8.8 (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- The original symmetry is SU(2)xU(1). It is broken to produce a new U(1). The original 4 generators were all mixed, and the new ones are superpositions of them. The new Z is not specifically one of the original generators. Hope this is helpful and all pedantically correct. Setreset (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)