From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Vector Bosons?
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:46:17 GMT

Hi folks,

A warning about my earlier item on vector bosons:  I am NOT, repeat NOT
a physicist, and don't want to inadvertantly give casual readers the
impression that I am.  That's important because even though I've read
a lot of physics, I haven't been through the same basics sequence or
higher level courses of a bona fide physicist, and am quite likely (I
would say almost certain) to drop some *great* boners here and there.

(But on the other hand, I've seen some *physicists* drop some great
boners on these nets from time to time, too!)

My interest in sending emails to a group like this is more in trying
to explain some of the fascinating things that I've read about in
physics in terms that may be a little less intimidating (and perhaps
thus more interesting) to its more casual readers.

I happen to think that modern physics is one of the most beautiful and
astonishing pieces of work ever created in the history of man, and my
respect for it and some of its pioneers is immense.  So while I enjoy
talking about my understanding of it from time to time, I do not wish
to confuse people about what is actually taught, and thus I heartily
welcome any inputs and corrections by real physicists on anything I
might say.

(This is not to say I will roll over an play dead, either, as a couple
of the aforementioned physicsts who roam the nets have found out in
private emails from time to time.  }=-)>   )

.....

Anywho...

In article <25473@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:

> How about, "what with *everyone* doing more or less the same thing."?  
> Except at zero temperature, the particles in a bose condensate are *not*
> all in the same energy level.

I didn't know that, and am intrigued.  I had thought that the bosons
in such a condensate were fully indistinguishable, and so (too) casually
assumed that they shared exactly the same energy level.  I always assumed
temperatures above 0 K in 4He condensates were provided by the "ordinary"
particles that are always mixed in with and form a secondary component of
the overall condensate, rather than by the "true" condensate particles.
(Scientific American had a good article on superfluid He some years ago,
which included a discussion about the temperature-dependent role that
non-condensate particles play in such fluids.)

You are saying, then, that the Bose-Einstein statistics act to "hold
together" a large collection of very-nearly-the-same energy states,
and that this is the effect that allows such a condensate to range
(in the case of liquid He) up to a couple of degrees K?


> There is nothing about the statistical properties of bosons which implies
> that they should be the mediators of the various forces.  There is no
> cause and effect here.  There are fundamental bosons, such as the
> Higgs or axion, which may exist but are not intermediate bosons.

Thought I remembered a quote on that when I wrote it, but now that you've
nudged me I cannot actually think of any reference.  I definitely bow to
your physics background on that one.


> ... If the electron were a boson, then all atoms would have the radius
> of a hydrogen atom.  That certainly would shrink things a bit, but not
> enough to collapse the Earth into a grape-sized black hole.

Concur fully with your model.  I was flat-out wrong on that statement.

Follow-up:  Now as to whether such bose-electron atoms would be *exactly*
the same size as H, or slightly bigger (from electron-electron repulsion)
or perhaps even slightly smaller (due to the higher nuclear charge), I
haven't the foggiest idea.  Only the H --> He radius size transition
exists as a plausible approximation, and my best recollection is that it
gets slightly larger.  An modestly interesting (and potentially solvable?)
thought problem, though.


> It is the electric charge of the electron, not its spin, which is
> primarily responsible for the volume of matter... Only if the electric
> charge of the electron were turned off ... do things get really dense.

Or, alternately, if you "turn off" QM and allow a classical EM collapse?


> Well done, except for the few nits picked above.

Thanks!  I enjoy picking up louse eggs (nits) myself from time to time. :)

				Cheers,
				Terry

Newsgroups: sci.physics