Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Are Force carriers real or not

Tags:
  1. Dec 20, 2017 #1

    ftr

    User Avatar

  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 20, 2017 #2

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Experiments detect W, Z, photons etc. as final scattering states, not as intermediate force carriers.
     
  4. Dec 20, 2017 #3

    ftr

    User Avatar

    So modern physics particles play hide and seek. Just like the higgs particle, its field cannot be detected and the particle itself does not exist naturally but we can recreate them in experiments, i.e. give their vacuum enough energy by exciting the constituent fields of the proton with a lot of energy to overspill to the higgs field. Something similar with W, Z in actual nature they don't exist their "virtual" exist hence their fields must be their and we must pump energy into their fields to find them by our lucky star process that converts them to gama rays for us to detect. Say, not even Morgan Freeman can make it so melodramatic.:wink:

    Seriusly
    , is my description approximately correct, if not why not. Thanks
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2017
  5. Dec 20, 2017 #4

    PeterDonis

    Staff: Mentor

    Because they're not measuring them indirectly by measuring the effects of the interactions they mediate on other particles. They are measuring them directly by pumping enough energy into the system to make W, Z, etc. particles without them mediating any interactions.

    Sure it can. Just not directly. But it has plenty of indirect effects, such as the masses of the W and Z bosons. That's how physicists knew roughly what kind of device they would need to build to make Higgs particles directly.

    Sure. What's wrong with that? We did the same thing with all of the chemical elements beyond uranium (plus technetium and prometheum, both of which are lighter than uranium). They don't occur naturally, but we can make them in experiments. Does that mean they are playing "hide and seek"?
     
  6. Dec 21, 2017 #5

    ftr

    User Avatar

    Thank you PeterDonis. Can you make a comment regarding the red text in the OP.
     
  7. Dec 21, 2017 #6

    PeterDonis

    Staff: Mentor

    What about it? The statement is perfectly true, and doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. Is that what you wanted to know?
     
  8. Dec 21, 2017 #7

    ftr

    User Avatar

    What do you think it means?
     
  9. Dec 21, 2017 #8

    PeterDonis

    Staff: Mentor

    Just what it says: the notion of "force carrier particles" does not make sense outside of perturbation theory. Which has nothing to do with how experiments detect W, Z, etc., because, as @Demystifier and I have explained, experiments don't detect "force carrier particles", they detect particles that aren't mediating any interactions.
     
  10. Dec 21, 2017 #9

    ftr

    User Avatar

    To me I interpret the wiki as saying there may not be a mediating particle as such, so why do we insist that we can detect them even though they are artifacts of the method.
     
  11. Dec 21, 2017 #10

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    The direct detection of W,Z and Higgs has nothing to do with perturbation theory. It is a completely different method. What you quoted is irrelevant for it.
     
  12. Dec 21, 2017 #11

    ftr

    User Avatar

    That is not what I said.
     
  13. Dec 21, 2017 #12
    W, Z etc. are not "mediating" particles per se. They are just real particles, corresponding to fields which show up in the standard model lagrangian. As such, they are still there in non-perturbative QFT. In perturbation theory, they can show up as "external legs" in Feynman diagrams, ie. as actual particles coming in or out of scattering processes, OR they can show up as internal lines, or "virtual particles". Now, you can (and should) say that virtual particles don't really "exist" in any meaningful way, since they are just the product of a perturbative expansion and don't show up in non-perturbative methods. But they still have "real" counterparts, which do exist outside of perturbation theory (and which we can actually measure)!
     
  14. Dec 21, 2017 #13

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    That is exactly the problem.
     
  15. Dec 21, 2017 #14

    ftr

    User Avatar

    Ok thanks. Can you give reference please.
     
  16. Dec 21, 2017 #15
  17. Dec 21, 2017 #16

    PeterDonis

    Staff: Mentor

    Your interpretation is wrong. Saying that the concept of "force carrier particle" does not make sense outside of perturbation theory is not the same as saying that W, Z, etc. are "artifacts of the method". They're not. They are real quantum fields, which under appropriate conditions take on states that can be detected as real particles by our detectors. The only "artifact of the method" is viewing terms in a mathematical perturbation expansion as "force carrier particles"; but these "particles" are not the same as the particles detected by our detectors. They are different states of the quantum fields; the fact that the word "particle" happens to appear in the ordinary language description of both is irrelevant to the actual physics.

    No, you need to give a reference--a textbook or peer-reviewed paper, not a Wiki article--that supports your claims if you want to continue making them despite the corrections you have already received. And at this point you will need to do so by PM to me, since I am closing this thread because the question you asked has already been answered, repeatedly.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Loading...