What Are Bosons?

[Rhondazvous]

Rhonda, I'm trying to keep it simple, but I believe this is a picture of 2 bosons within each others space...

---

---

Thanks, Iggy

They seem to have fur. Interesting.

[Rhondazvous]

I won a Nobel for discovering the energy absorbing particle in couches that causes laziness; the futon.

My boy is cute. I love him.

[brewer]

Quark -> Boson -> ? -> Profit!

Quark -> Boson -> ? -> Prophet?

[Rhondazvous]

I know that bosons are elemental particles that carry energy, but what does that mean? Are they containers that contain energy or catalysts with energy attached to them or are bosons themselves energy?

Well bosons are pretty much mass less energy. Okay in order of.

? -> Quark -> Proton -> Boson 

No one really know's the answer to that ? mark until the LHC finds something smaller than a quark maybe in our life time we hit the limit with the LHC on how small
we can look.

Not sure I follow the connection you're making between quarks/protons and bosons. Proton is a type of quark but quarks are fermions not bosons.

[Alex K]

Not exactly a type of quark... A bound state of quarks.

[LastPoet]

No Rhonda, protons are a composition of quarks. Protons are composed of 3 quarks as are neutrons and all others hadrons. Mesons have two.  IIRC. I think Alex is more up to date and has more knowledge in this than me. While hadrons, mesons and leptons obey Pauli's exclusion principle, bosons do not. In a nuts and bolts explanation they are the force carriers between those particles. Correct me if Im wrong, my physics are a little rusty.

[Angrboda]

[Rhondazvous]

No Rhonda, protons are a composition of quarks. Protons are composed of 3 quarks as are neutrons and all others hadrons. Mesons have two.  IIRC. I think Alex is more up to date and has more knowledge in this than me. While hadrons, mesons and leptons obey Pauli's exclusion principle, bosons do not. In a nuts and bolts explanation they are the force carriers between those particles. Correct me if Im wrong, my physics are a little rusty.

Thanks for the correction.

[Rhondazvous]

Not exactly a type of quark... A bound state of quarks.

Alex, did you see my last response to you? You asked me a question and I answered you.

If only I had something other than words to express my meaning—like a direct connection to my brain.

When I say bosons containing energy, I mean the boson is like a physical container with the energy inside it like a lightbulb is a glass container. or it could be a catalyst with energy attached to it the way oil attaches itself to a soap molecule.

When I say the boson is energy, I mean the boson (what other words can I use here), I mean that the energy itself is called a boson and is not contained in a separate entity.

I hope that brings us closer to understanding one another. Thanks for your patience.

[Alex K]

@Rhonda

Yes, I've read it! My next post was meant as a response...

Yes it does. But I can't give you a definite answer. Not because the question is bad, but because I am not sure which of the things I think I know about particles are artifacts of the formalism used to analyze the theory, artifacts of the theory we use to describe nature, and which things are really truths independent of how one writes down and treats the theory. Furthermore, my understanding of theory has its limitations. Last but not least, "a particle" in common usage is an idealized thing which does not reflect the intricasies of the theory.

With those caveats: In the Standard Model, the way it is usually written down, elementary particles are excitations of fields. They carry theoretical labels  which distinuish them (which field it is, and in what state precisely). Energy is a secondary property which can be assigned to field configurations, among others such as momentum, charge, etc., and isolated particles correspond to field configurations with certain discrete energy quantities corresponding to their mass via mc^2. In this picture, elem. particles are not containers of energy, but neither would one say they are Energy itself.
One might hoewever be able to simply adopt the speech convention that everything is Energy, and that this Energy can be stored in different fields, or, equivalenty, be assigned different labels.

But I don't feel comfortable giving Energy such a fundamental role.