Why the carrying force fields must be the fields of Boson particles?

ndung200790
Messages
519
Reaction score
0
Please teach me this:
Why carrying force particles must be Bosons and matter particles must be Fermions?By the way,why do we concentrate on Gauge Symmetries?Is it correct that is because the Gauge theories lead to vector Bosons that carrying forces?
Thank you very much for your kind helping.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A classical force field needs it's carriers to be able to have many particles in the same state.

Bear in mind that at this level we are basically looking at nature and seeing what is there in that sense the bosons and fermions have their characteristic roles because those are what we have found... you are wondering if it has to be that way. This is pretty much an area of active research - there are lots of ideas.

Generally, though, we don't think of our theories as giving rise to nature ... more the other way around. The Gauge theories are attempts to come up with a simpler more complete description or model for what we find in nature. We concentrate on the symmetries because that makes the math easier - and interesting stuff happens there.

Aside: when writing English, we put a space after trailing punctuation like commas and question marks. It help people read what you write.
 
In particle physics, bosons are subatomic particles that obey Bose–Einstein statistics. Several bosons can occupy the same quantum state. The word boson derives from the name of Satyendra Nath Bose.[1]

Bosons contrast with fermions, which obey Fermi–Dirac statistics. Two or more fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state.

Since bosons with the same energy can occupy the same place in space, bosons are often force carrier particles. In contrast, fermions are usually associated with matter (although in quantum physics the distinction between the two concepts is not clear cut)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson


You can get an idea about the usefulness of gauge symmetries by skimming here even if you don't know [like me] all the underlying math:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_symmetry

The prior post ('makes the math easier') is right on...such symmetries also leads to useful predictions.

According to symmetry between the forces, at high enough temperatures (at the big bang) for example, the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces are actually part of one and the same force...today that symmetry (unity) is obscured by the Higgs ocean.
 
Last edited:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top