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

Manifestation of messenger particles?

  1. Jan 16, 2007 #1
    It is accepted that in exothermic chemical reactions which is essentially a reconfiguration of electrons into a more stable form, photons are emitted. When a molar sample is experimented, we can most easily observe these photons as heat (since not all emit photons in the visible wave length).

    If you think about the heat mechanism like convection, conduction. The atoms interact with each other via the collision of the outer shell electrons. When they are exicted the electrons move into a higher level orbit and when they go down again, photon is emitted. So in this way, heat transferred via conduction and conduction is also due to the photon. There is also heat transfer via radiation which obviously is a more direct way of using photons to heat objects.

    In nuclear reactions the force carrier are predominantly gluons. However, in nuclear reactors used for energy generation, they claim the energy they derive from nuclear reaction is mainly heat which then goes to heat water and the mechanical energy of the water in the form of steam is able to all sorts of useful work. In this way the manifestation of gluons is heat again.

    So the manifestation of photon and gluon is heat. Correct?

    What about W and Z bosons? How about the graviton if they exist?

  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 16, 2007 #2
    Aren't conduction and convection all about the random velocities of (ground state) atoms, rather than internal electronic excitations?
  4. Jan 16, 2007 #3
    Sometimes, It takes a lot of energy to start a conduction and convection going in a macroscopic sense (i.e. boiling water or cooking with a pan). I imagine when the pan is 200 celcius degrees hot or so some of the valence electrons would be excited to higher levels.
  5. Jan 16, 2007 #4
    I think your original post is nonsense. Heat is just a form of energy, just like electric/nuclear/gravitational potential energy. You can sometimes convert one type of energy into another. What of it?
  6. Jan 26, 2007 #5
    Heat is energy. But energy is in the units of Nm. So a force is recquired to exist in order for energy to occur. Fundalmentally all force comes from the messenger particles according to particles physics today. Therefore there should be a link between messenger particles and energy. A popular form of energy (especially in chemistry and nuclear physics) is heat. Have I made some mistakes in stating this? Why I am nonsensical?
  7. Jan 26, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Wouldn't it be more correct to say energy is measured in the units of Joules?
    Nm=Joules, right?
  8. Jan 26, 2007 #7
    Correct but N which is the unit for force is involved. So energy=>force Whenever a form of energy is observed, a force has occured which is carried out by messenger particles.
  9. Jan 26, 2007 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2018 Award

    You shouldn't be playing this game to "deduce" the nature of a quantity. After all, I can easily point out that "Nm" is not the most "fundamental" unit of energy. You can further break it down as "kgm^2/s^2", and now what? You are going to then deduce that "energy => length, mass and time", and therefore must have "messenger length, mass and time"? That would sound ridiculous.

  10. Jan 26, 2007 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, this is not how conduction or convection works.


Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook