Volney wrote:

> My question is, assume there is a massless (or very tiny mass, not
> massive like W/Z) boson with spin-0 which mediates a new force. Its
> field 'tensor'
> would be zero-dimensional or just a scalar. What would this mean on a
> macroscopic scale? I guess each point in space would have a simple value
> in response to a nearby charge, not a vector like EM.
>
> How about a spin-3 (or more!) boson? Spin-3 would imply a 3D tensor
> defining its field's properties. Again what macroscopic properties would
> a field mediated by a spin-3 boson have? I know this is vague since the
> only property is the spin of the mediating boson but this must imply
> certain properties come from this, but what?

this is incorrect. To undrestand that you have to undrestand tensors big
time. Not just overbebly.

[[Mod. note -- Marketing spam snipped.
DON'T INCLUDE SPAM IN YOUR POSTS! -- jt]]

The four "forces" are electromagnetic, weak, strong and (possibly)
gravitational. These forces have fields mediated by the bosons photon,
W/Z, gluon and (theoretically) graviton respectively. At least some have
'charges' such that a particle with a nonzero charge will apply force to
other charged particles via virtual boson interchange. The properties of
the field depends on the spin of the mediating boson, the first three
are spin-1 so have a vector to describe interactions, while the
theoretical graviton is spin-2 and interactions are via the 2D
stress-energy tensor.

My question is, assume there is a massless (or very tiny mass, not
massive like W/Z) boson with spin-0 which mediates a new force. Its
field 'tensor' would be zero-dimensional or just a scalar. What would
this mean on a macroscopic scale? I guess each point in space would have
a simple value in response to a nearby charge, not a vector like EM.

How about a spin-3 (or more!) boson? Spin-3 would imply a 3D tensor
defining its field's properties. Again what macroscopic properties would
a field mediated by a spin-3 boson have? I know this is vague since the
only property is the spin of the mediating boson but this must imply
certain properties come from this, but what?

Also how are the number of charges defined? Emag has + and - quantized.
The strong force seems to have 6 possible charges? (three 'colors' and
three 'anticolors') Gravity seemingly has one, mass(energy). I read that
weak charge exists, but it really can't provide a force because its
massive bosons create an extremely short range. Is there some
theoretical property that defines the number of charges?

What causes a boson to be a force carrier/field quantization anyway?
I've wondered if the Higgs boson could be the mediator of an extremely
short ranged (because of its large mass) scalar 'force' and it seems
that the Higgs-defined mass of particles could be its associated
'charge'. Is this all nonsense?

Not very useful, nymshifter, please explain more about tensors if you can.

Regarding tensors, since the spin of the boson corresponds to the
dimensions of the associated field tensor (does anyone know why/how?),
a spin 0 boson would have a zero dimensional scalar field (like
temperature of points within a volume), spin 1 a vector with a
direction, spin 3 and beyond would be quite interesting with 3+
dimensional tensors. What would this look like in real life?

Also how does spin 1 electromagnetism differ from (theoretical) spin-2
gravity? I know gravity waves are depicted as stretching in one
dimension while compressing at a right angle for a half cycle while emag
jiggles back and forth but beyond that?

[[Mod. note -- A "minor" nit-pick:

The term "gravity waves" has been used for hundreds of years in physics
to mean a wave propagating in matter in which the restoring forces are
provided by bouyancy and gravity. E.g., ocean waves are this sort of
gravity waves, as are pressure waves propagating in the atmospheres of
planets and stars.

The spin-2 "ripples in spacetime curvature" that we're talking about
here are better called "gravitational waves". I've heard the slang
term "gravy waves" for them, but this doesn't appear to be common
usage.
-- jt]]