You couldn't prove it by me that they have a whole lot to do with gauging anything, so where did that name come from?

Ok, so as far as I know, one definition of virtual particles is that they are fully contained within a Feynmann diagram and are basically just how we can think about scattering in the standard model. Or rather a Lorentz invariant representation of the summation of time-ordered scattering possibilities. They also do not have to obey the Einstein-Energy-momentum equation, also called "off the shell".

So where my question comes in (taking the photon as an example) is the fact that every photon should originate from some kind of Feynmann vertex and end in another. I don't see any other way, at least for quantum mechanics of the standard model. Like, isn't every free photon just part of a bigger Feynmann diagram? When we zoom out all the way we would get a whole picture of reality with basically all photons contained within? (Obviously ignoring that the standard model, or at least this interpretation, might not actually explain reality fully)

Is there a mistake in this interpretation? Do we just call every photon real for which the Einstein relation holds to a certain degree?

Some sources (books or online open-access notes) I've read from say that w and z bosons are virtual while some say that they're real.

A quora reply (https://qr.ae/pGFU8N) to someone's question on whether the gauge bosons in the standard model are virtual, states: "The gauge bosons can be real or virtual as the situation demands, as can any particles, bosons or fermions. If they appear as an external leg of a Feynman diagram they are deemed real. If they are internal to a Feynman diagram they are deemed virtual".

But don't w and z bosons always decay into other particles since they're so short lived? And hence they appear as internal legs in the feynman diagrams. If so, when are they considered virtual and when are they not?

Side question: When people mention photon as force carriers in the standard model, they're actually referring to the virtual photon instead of the real photon right? I previously had a misconception that virtual particles are real when they're just mathematical tools that don't represent actual particles as corrected by other redditors here. Why do people still keep the virtual photon as a force carrier in introductions to particle physics when this can cause lots of confusion?

I scored a 746, which is apparently okay for first pass, but I feel dumb as hell after taking it. At least I am painfully aware of where to focus my deeper dives lol.

I’m not sure if mesons are described as being gauge bosons, as gluons are. Is any exchange particle a gauge boson?

For context, I'm 17 years old and I'm about to start my last year of school. I know the fundamentals of the standard model, but I'm not familiar with the maths (I'm a Brit) associated with it. That's not to say I'm unwilling to try it – I'm always up for a challenge – but just something to bear in mind.

All the articles I've seen either treat gauge and vector bosons as synonymous, or say stuff to the effect of

>all known gauge bosons are vector bosons

which implies that it is possible for a gauge boson not to be a vector boson, suggesting they're different things, but they don't say how.

Hence my question, how do gauge bosons and vector bosons differ?

Thanks in advance for the help.

I have been studying for the past few months to get this certification before the feb cut off.

I am busting my ass to be blunt. (last week alone I would come into work 4 hours early to study at work before my shift)

Today I finished up the last of my practical labs and had some time so I decided to take my first Boson exam.

Breakdown came as follows:

Network Fundamentals 57%

LAN Switching Fundamentals 65%

Routing Fundamentals 56%

Infrastructure Services 43%

Infrastructure Management 75%

Score: 734/832

Now I know it is a fail and I have a few days left to cram. but I have to say I feel. like I just need a few topics to review and I should have this. I am praying I get to make a "I passed post" Saturday afternoon

Beta- Decay https://imgur.com/gallery/MHJJ57N

Hey, so I just have a couple of "little" questions which have been bugging me while "learning" this stuff for fun. One of the questions I have is about the diagrams used for these quantum interactions, is the axis on the left there for time? And if so, why does the electron travel back in time (along with the boson seemingly) when it is actually being emitted. The other question I have (and I'm totally prepared to get no answer or a completely incomprehensible one for) is about gauge bosons, a quick search tells you that it is with these bosons that forces can have particles interact, but to my knowledge photons are not the particles with which electromagnetic fields act upon things (if that makes any sense? Like gluons allow the strong force to colour change particles, but photons don't really do anything?). So are gluons the only way forces can act is what I'm trying to ask. Thank you very much to anyone willing to read through this and answer any of the questions :)

Sorry for any formatting or spelling errors as I am on mobile and am also new to this subreddit

tl;dr: am very confused

When the fundamental forces were unified they had different gauge bosons, such as the W1, W2, W3, and B particle for the electroweak force. All of which are massless and therefore stable.

Would any of them have survived the separation of the fundamental forces?

I am wondering why they picked those terms and what they mean in (and out of) the context of Bosons.

after all, I hope they have more meaning that words like strange and charm...

Take

L=(dµ + i Aµ) f* (d^(µ) - i A^(µ) )f - m² |f|² - 1/4 Fµv F^(µv)

as our local gauge invariant Lagrangian

If we work this Lagrangian out we can write it as:

L=dµ f* d^(µ) f - m² |f|² + Jµ A^(µ ) - 1/4 Fµv F^(µv) + AµA^(µ) |f|²

Where Jµ is the conserved current because of the local gauge invariance of the f-field, it's something like Jµ=i (dµ f* f - dµ f f*).

Now this last term AµA^(µ) |f|² is what my question is about. As far as I have seen in QFT texts this term is not included at all? Why? It seems important as it is needed for the Local gauge invariance of the whole thing no? Also it seems to have a meaning of a mass term where the mass is |f|²? I would appreciate if someone could clarify the meaning of this term and why it's ommited and why we are allowed to omit it without breaking local gauge invariance.

The electromagnetic interaction is carried by photons, while the weak interaction is carried by W and Z bosons. How can it then be that these two forces are in fact the same force, the electroweak interaction?

I don't want to enter into the discussion of the nature of virtual particles. I'm just curious if you say that virtual particles have nothing physical (the can't be measured, the arise in classical mechanics, they are a perturbative feature...), would saying that gauge bosons mediate interactions be equally wrong? I ask this because the former opinion is fairly common, while I've never heard the latter.

I'm finishing up a master's degree in semiconductor engineering (bachelor's in physics) and I'm still confused about gauge bosons, specifically photons as mediators of the electromagnetic force. Having extensively studied semiconductors, I'm fully aware that electrons and photons interact constantly, and that these interactions can substantially alter the energy state of the electron in question (electron absorbs/emits a photon and has a resulting increase/decrease in energy).

What I'm stuck on is the idea of photons being transferred between two electrons to produce a resulting force. Am I thinking about this all wrong?

I'm not looking for basic explanations here, I understand that a charged particle in an electromagnetic field will feel a force. I simply wish to understand the mechanism responsible for creating that force.

So my current understanding is that all of the fundamental forces converge at high energies, and for this to be mathematically sound all of the forces' respective bosons must have the same mass. This means that they must all have 0 mass, and the effect of mass that we experience is a result of the bosons interacting with the Higgs field.

Please feel free to explain it better than I have, and I would also like to know why the bosons all have to have the same mass, I've heard that this is to do with Yang-Mills gauge theory but I cannot find anything that explains it beyond that. Also, why must this mass be 0 (I'm guessing its to do with the photon and not wanting to break relativity by giving it a non 0 mass) and why the higgs field interacts with different particles fifderently. An overview of gauge theory would be helpful and feel free to indulge your mathematical urges if it helps explain things; I'm not scared.

Thanks in advance

EDIT: spelling, sorry about the title too, can't change that- god that's annoying...

Its said that the forces are mediated by the exchange of gauge bosons among fermions. I can't understand (intuitively) how the exchange of these bosons (which some have mass, some don't) can result in attractive/repulsive forces. In my head, exchange of those bosons with mass should always have repulsive effect: particle emitting it accelerating in opposite direction and the one receiving it accelerating in the direction being "hit".

I've read that they travel at c, but is this simply an approximation or a fundamental property? If fundamental, why is it defined by constants related to the electromagnetic force? And if not, is there a constant speed (in vacuum, obviously) of each?

I'm curious what gauge boson would be able to form bound states from a mathematical point of view? I've seen mentions of glueballs, but what about W-balls or something like that?

And how would someone determine if a bound state is possible? I guess you should start from the Green function.

It seems like they would either be unique and only interact using one boson or set of bosons (akin to how the electric and magnetic both are described by the photon boson). Instead, there are photons and there are w & z bosons. This leads me to think they are distinct forces but my physics professor says that is incorrect. Why is that incorrect?

I am nearing the end of my ROUTE studies and contemplating scheduling the exam for two weeks from now (no earlier dates available). I am trying to gauge my readiness for the exam based on Boson scores, since I can't think of a better benchmark right now. I also went through all the exam topics and gave myself a lecture in each one, and it went well.

After that, I switched to Boson ExSim, since I like to save practice tests for last. I went through each test in simulation mode, and then in study mode, reading all the explanations on right and wrong answers. I spent roughly three days on each of the first three tests, just to absorb as much as possible.

Today, I did the last test in simulation mode, and here are my first-time scores on each of the exams:

• Exam A: 748/790
• Exam B: 790/790
• Exam C: 748/790
• Exam D: 875/790.

So, question for all of you that passed ROUTE and used Boson, are these scores any indication of my chances to pass ROUTE? This will be my first attempt at Cisco's professional-level exams, so pardon my cautiousness.

Also, if anyone is interested, my studying resources were:

• CCNP subreddit
• Kevin Wallaces's videos
• The OCG
• Cisco whitepapers
• NetworkLessons
• GNS3 labs, mostly using GNS3Vault
• Boson NetSim
• Boson ExSim

Thank you in advance!

Why do photons travel and why at the speed of light? What is it about the medium of space time that requires light to pick a direction and go? It can be effected by gravity or can be absorbed but a free ranging photon has to leave whatever piece of space/time it sits in and it has to leave to its next destination at 186,000 m/s...

I took the CCNP ENARSI today and it was my first attempt. I have been studying off and on for about 3 months with maybe 2-3 weeks of serious 3-4 hours a day studying. I would also say that I am just now getting to a point where i feel confident in some of the material. Overall, I am not bummed out by my breakdown (apparently they don't give scores anymore). The reason I say that is because the material i used to study was definitely adequate in preparing me for the types of questions the exam had. I wanted to make a post about this because I spent probably 3-4 hours just browsing people's feedback on the exam to make sure i was headed in the right direction. Thus, I figured that I would share my own thoughts in an effort to help the next person and also revisit in the coming weeks/months when i take my next attempt.

==== Little bit of background so people know my past experiences and education ====

Graduated from Uni with a degree in network engineering. I got my CCNA coming out of college and was working on part of my CCNP. This has been about 5-6 years ago now. While in college i started as a Cisco intern working in the laboratory, referred to as CALO, which supported the TAC side of the house. I cut my teeth on physical labbing and L2/L3 configuration (CCNA level) here. About 1 year after my internship, i was hired on full time as a TAC engineer on the Core Architecture/Technology Solutions team (CATS). I spent most of my time here learning how to debug IOS/IOSXE C code while filing bugs and helping resolve L1/L2/L3 issues for customers such as packet loss, memory leaks, cpu over-utilization, stale pointer crashes, null pointer dereference crashes, etc. I worked in TAC for about 2 years and then moved over to the Sales side as a Systems Engineer working for local towns/municipalities and schools (very rewarding to help schools improve their infrastructure).

==== Current Certifications ====

CCNA

DevNet Associate

CCNP ENCOR

==== Length and Type of Studying ====

1-2 hours a day for maybe 2 months (reading and videos solely)

3-4 hours a day for 2-3 weeks. (reading/videos/practice exams)

I did no labs (huge mistake)

I read the OCG and watched INE/Pearson videos primarily for my study material

==== Week of Preparation ====

I used Boson practice test to try and gauge where my knowledge was. I was scoring around 600-650 on those test and I used the study mode to go into much greater detail. I did not take each test more than once for fear

tl;dr — Some interesting quotes from the study that support my previous discussions (Discussion 1 & Discussion 2):

• “Finally, I again find it necessary to use physics to bring the whole phenomena of out-of-body states into the language of physical science to remove the stigma of its occult connotations, and put it in a frame of reference suited to objective assessment.” —The study goes on in-depth to explain the process of Quantum Tunneling/Entanglement/Decoherence, extra-dimensions, higher consciousness, coherent emotions, a singular “Absolute Infinity” of Intelligence, and M-Theory, to explain the “Gateway Process“ phenomena in addition to also coming to the conclusion that all religious/spiritual/supernatural/UFO phenomena are connected
• “Fundamentally, the Gateway Experience is a training system designed to bring enhanced strength, focus, and coherence to the amplitude and frequency of brainwave output between the left and right hemispheres so as to alter consciousness, moving it outside the physical sphere so as to ultimately escape even the restrictions of time and space. The participant then gains access to the various levels of intuitive knowledge which the universe offers.”
• The “holographic model marries brain research to theoretical physics; it accounts for normal perception and simultaneously take the paranormal and transcendental experiences out of the supernatural by explaining them as a part of nature.”
• The study describes it as something which “overlays everything as do many of the intervening gradients or dimensions through which the energies of the universe pass on their way to and from their home in the state of infinity (the Absolute)…To enter these intervening dimensions, human consciousness must focus with intense coherence that the frequency of the energy patterns which comprises that consciousness (i.e., the brainwave output) can accelerate to the point where the resulting frequency pattern, if displayed on an oscilloscope, would look virtually like a solid line.”
• Interestingly, it specifically says about a certain technique “…not only enhances bodily energy flow and enco

Ok, I'm really sorry for the stupid question from a stupid person.

What does it actually mean?

If I have a single SU(5) gauge symmetry, would I be on the right track, thinking it would break into SU(3) X SU(2) X U(1) after symmetry breaking? Is this expressing the remaining symmetry as simple factors? How does that relate to certain gauge bosons being massless?

Yes this is for an assignment. The assignment gives me the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs post symmetry breaking (as a 5X5 matrix) and asks to express the remaining symmetry as a product of simple factors and identify the gauge bosons which remain massless. Or at least that's what part (a) asks, but I fallen at the first hurdle - which I know probably just makes me unfit for physics, so I'm sorry for wasting your time. The course is largely based off of Peskin and Schroeder, which I currently have a copy of.

I have seen a lot of people gauge their exam preparedness based off of Boson exams, however I find Pierson Vue questions much more complex and layered.

Are Boson exams a more accurate reflection of the test question complexity?

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

EVENT TRAILER

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO0rGsNQ-pw

We’ve all learned a little bit about the meaning of Legacy this season, and now we’re ready to take it all the way back to the beginning with the Genesis Collection Event. Play on OG Battle Royale maps, become the king of Skull Town in Arenas, and unlock new looks and rewards in our latest Collection Event.

The Genesis Collection Event kicks off June 29, 2021 and runs until July 13th, 2021.

Read on for details.

EVENT DEVSTREAM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TspYOraq1Cw

ORIGINAL KINGS CANYON AND WORLD’S EDGE RETURN

https://preview.redd.it/l3wu3dyoh8771.png?width=1456&format=png&auto=webp&s=d808bb9354cd693010b2d3c6533f47afefd8fa47

Head back to where it all started with the Legacy Maps Apex Takeover.

Season 0 Kings Canyon and Season 3 World’s Edge return for a limited time, taking over the normal Trios and Duos queues in 1 hour rotations. What better way to celebrate the Legacy of Apex Legends than to visit the first iterations of these iconic maps?

https://preview.redd.it/2ux8c2uph8771.png?width=1456&format=png&auto=webp&s=8dfd17283b18ea369743e39c488b9aa06df21ff8

Hot drop in Kings Canyon at Skull Town (we know you will) and Thunderdome! Grab that sweet loot on the moving train as it barrels through a pristine Capital City in the era before the Harvester landed in World’s Edge. Show your new Apex friends the terror of rotating through Bridges or the epic multi-team throwdowns in Fuel Depot. It’s all coming back now, isn’t it?

We hope everyone enjoys this throwback Takeover during the Genesis Collection Event!

SKULL TOWN COMES TO ARENAS

https://preview.redd.it/toqwkpkqh8771.png?width=1456&format=png&auto=webp&s=2a3313575aa7fde39af970138ec3ee75741e8e25

We heard you! Five minutes after we announced Arenas, we were seeing pleas for a Skull Town Arena. Well, here it is!

This original Apex hotzone has seen a lot of combat through the years, but this is the first time we can say it hosts a fair fight. Circle the towers as Valkyrie & Pathfinder or trap up the bottom floors as Caustic & Wattson. This location offers a wide variety of tactics and plenty of mayhem.

Skull Town will be added to the Arenas rotation in one hour increments during the Genesis Collection Event. Get in there and break some bones.

GENESIS

I provisionally passed after 4 weeks and 2 days of studying with only a couple days off for Thankgiving weekend. That seems fast, but I'll layout my background and resources used and hopefully that will help others gauge their expected timeframe.

Background: 8 years in IT doing work including NAC, FWs, load balancers, proxies, etc. Also engaged in lots of high-level and in-depth networking design, budgeting, vendor relations, participating in committees, responding to vulnerability assessments and penetration tests, etc. I have 2 degrees in IT (associates and bachelor's) and several certs like CCNP, ITIL, CASP+, etc.

I did the CASP+ this year as well as some cloud certs and ITIL. I felt like coming off that was my best chance at staying focused and going for CISSP. There's a lot of overlap there but of course CASP+ is more technical. I would actually say that test might be harder, but it really depends on your background. I do not think it has the ROI that CISSP does but it could be worth it for technical folks to sharpen up their weaker areas. My employer paid for it, so it was a no-brainer for me as it renewed my other CompTIA certs.

Resources:

• CBTNuggets - 9/10; I always use CBTNuggets if they have a course as I have a subscription through work. This is good but high-level
• Mike Chapple LinkedIn Learning - 10/10; he wrote the book and this course, although lengthy, goes over most topics and gives you a good basis
• CertMike Study Guide - 8/10; This is just a 13 page PDF of cramming material. It was $10 and good but nothing earth shattering
• Pluralsight - 1/10 - Terribly boring and filled with fluff. I listed to it while on walks but this was not good
• Cybrary - 8/10; I listened to old MP3s as I did not want to spend additional money for high-level material. For the price (free), it was great, and I suspect the current material is worth buying
• Youtube Inside Cloud and Security - 10/10; There's various playlists and Pete mentioned stuff that I didn't see mentioned elsewhere which was useful. It's free and worth looking over
• 11th Hour CISSP - 8/10; outdated but a quick read that's very focused. This is worth the $20
• Think Like a Manager - 9/10; This is worth picking up. The alien question and the firewall question are not valuable but the rest of it is and helps with your manager mindset
• Sunflower Study Guide - 1/10; Too long and poor formatting for mobile. Non-sensical really and did not finis

First of all I would like to thank everyone who shared your resources, and tips.

Advancing the profession is one of the cannons after all.

I have no idea why no one mentioned the testing application has a calculator built in, and I wish they had, because this was a source of anxiety for me while studying.

Below I have documented my journey to the CISSP: I passed @ 100 Q / 2 hours.

My Perspective:

I had attained SEC+ with a 3 day class and about 1 day of studying. For the CISSP, I put in about 8 weeks of studying everyday probably about 6 hours or more per day. I was scared because I did not know what to expect, I only felt conflicted on about 10 - 15 questions, and I definitely spotted the 5 or so beta questions. Your milage may vary. (Links Below)

My Journey in 10 Steps:

1. I started with Sari Green's Pearson video series on Safari, which I have not seen a lot of people mention. But it is a solid series, she has a much more positive and encouraging tone, then does mike chapel's dry as hell videos. I paused them and rewatched them many times, it took me several weeks to go through, and my pace was about 2 domains per week.

2. I Followed up primarily by listening to, and occasionally actually watching mike chapels video series on linkedin, mostly while I was doing other things, to supplement. They are very thorough, but the guy talks like ben stein.

3. Then I skimmed each chapter of the OSG, looking for concepts that I do not remember seeing in either of the video series. While also taking the official practice tests for the first three domains.

4. I found out about the boson exam engine, and I began by taking the first practice exam to help gauge my technical knowledge, and see what I should focus on reviewing. (scored high 60%) and it should be noted, this is really just a tool for checking your technical knowledge, which is why I really wish they would do more with the results reporting on this app.

5. I decided I need some more well rounded review, which I had found with 11th hour CISSP, I purchased the audio book, and followed along with the kindle ebook while I listened, so I could look at the diagrams, I do not recommend getting the audio book on its own, as it does not supplement the diagrams so you need the book too. I also made a quizlet as I progressed through the book.

6. I supplemented all domains with the Youtube MindMap series by destination certification.

(After each subsequent step I took another one of the boson exams to

The photon is supposed to be an elementary particle, right? But in "The Particle Zoo" by Gavin Hesketh pg 141, it says that the photon is made up of part of a B boson and part of a W0 boson. But I'm confused, how can a photon be elementary when it is made up of these two parts? It says that the B and W0 appear simply in photons and Z bosons, not by themeselves alone. So are the B and W0 simply math tricks or something?

Thanks.

Do your worst!

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

How do elementary particles interact with each other by the exchange of gauge bosons?

How are gauge bosons being exchanged?

Does the standard model predict 12 different gauge bosons?