-1
$\begingroup$

force carriers or messenger particles or intermediate particles are particles that give rise to forces between other particles.

I read that

A field’s spin is determined by how it transform if you rotate the coordinates by $Λx$ and the field transforms by some amount.
A scalar doesn’t transform $ϕ(x)→ϕ(Λx)$
A vector transforms as the coordinates $A(x)→ΛA(Λx)$

I want to ask if is possible to replace messenger particles or intermediate particles philosophy model because this because leads to always perceive a particular type of use of that intermediation, which often leads to physical limits, but which in reality could be overcome (in a topologically way not with a direct physical access)

intermediate particles are gauge boson and this it means talking about vector bosons because we are talking about force carriers but this is typically 'wrestling' approach, but we can introduce a pragmatic interest, for a topological approach without having to always think with the muscles

In fact if you 'replace' the photon as a force carrier of electromagnetic force with a sfermion-fermion relation pair model we can unblock a scalar access without 'forcing' the system in a force carriers way in order to move from vectors to modules

a sfermion is a hypothetical spin-0 superpartner particle (sparticle) of its associated fermion. Each particle has a superpartner with spin that differs by $1/2$. Fermions in the SM have spin-$1/2$ and therefore sfermions have spin 0

We should consider the fermion-sfermion pair, not just the sfermion

I set this Equivalence relation

photon = fermion-sfermion relation pair
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hi. It is very unclear what exactly you’re asking (in particular, you seem to be making claims that are not a part of mainstream physics without backing them up or providing references). If you edit your question to be more clear, I’m sure you’ll have a much better time finding an answer. $\endgroup$ – Bob Knighton Dec 7 '18 at 10:34
  • $\begingroup$ @BobKnighton In practice I'm asking if instead of using the "photon model" as a messenger particle that describes the electromagnetic force, we can describe the same electromagnetic field using a model based on the fermion-sfermion pair relationship (in particular describe pair as a topological pair, it's just a replacement of a model ). My aim is not to bring out a force, but a way to use it in a non-electromagnetic way (because is topologically way) but remaining in the electromagnetic field $\endgroup$ – Super Sonic Dec 7 '18 at 11:01
  • $\begingroup$ How can a fermion and its superpartner be a "topological pair"? $\endgroup$ – Mitchell Porter Dec 7 '18 at 11:12
  • $\begingroup$ This should depend on how 1) one intends to use photons (for what purpose to use them before the physical event not only why photons are gauge bosons or why we have a physical measurement, it something before the experiment because is wired not to photons but to how physicists configure a possible measurement) 2) how to develop the model relationship between fermion-sfermion pair. $\endgroup$ – Super Sonic Dec 7 '18 at 12:21
  • $\begingroup$ So is your idea like this: 1) instead of vector photon, represent electromagnetic interaction with scalar 2) instead of representing interaction with particle, use a topological relationship 3) since charged particles like electron are fermions, represent the 'topological scalar' supersymmetrically? (since sfermion is scalar). $\endgroup$ – Mitchell Porter Dec 11 '18 at 7:01
1
$\begingroup$

Physics has numerous examples of alternative or dual descriptions, but I think you're asking for too many things at once here: you want electromagnetism to be described by a scalar, and for the scalar to be a superpartner of charged particles, and for electromagnetism to be a topological supersymmetric effect. If you're hoping for something equivalent to quantum electrodynamics (QED) and satisfying all those properties, there's no reason to think that it exists. And if you think we are free to just make up new theories of electromagnetism, you underestimate just how well-tested QED is.

This kind of radical speculation is a two-edged sword. Anyone who goes on to make unexpected discoveries must be able to consider possibilities that look unlikely, and really probe whether they could still be true. But there is also a risk of getting stuck on a personally favored hypothesis and neglecting to learn about what actually works, especially if one is an amateur speculator.

A fermion and a sfermion together form a chiral superfield. A chiral superfield can interact with itself (Wess-Zumino) but the fermion is Majorana, lacking an antiparticle. Alternatively, one could keep the vector photon and posit a spin 1/2 partner. But again, this 'photino' is uncharged, inherited from the fact that the photon also has no charge, it does not interact with itself (unlike the more complicated weak bosons and gluons).

As Pierre Fayet has written, at the beginning of supersymmetry, when people sought supersymmetric pairs among the known particles, it was more natural to seek the photon's superpartner in the uncharged neutrino, and the electron's superpartner in the charged W boson. But none of those ideas worked out either.

A relatively elementary problem, too, is that there are many charged particles: electron, muon, tau, the proton and charged pions (or the various quarks). Is the scalar photon a superpartner of all of these? Or (as in the supersymmetric standard model) is there a different superpartner for each elementary fermion, in which case how do you get the same interaction for all charged fermions?

There are various interesting ways to combine topology and supersymmetry and electromagnetism. I suppose it is remotely possible that composite photons could somehow emerge from topological interactions among chiral superfields. That's the closest I can get to your vision.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.