3 ms·

You are positive you were told that electrons are matter maybe. This is the standard (see: current) model, in QFT electrons are not particles, so are not lepton

You are positive you were told that electrons are matter maybe. This is the standard (see: current) model, in QFT electrons are not particles, so are not leptons, so are not matter.

petrocrat 5y ago
Is the mass measurement of electrons an abberation then in the QFT interpretation of the empirical data? Or is it that energy can have mass prior to being converted under some conditions?
- dekken_ 5y ago
  > Is the mass measurement of electrons an abberation then in the QFT interpretation of the empirical data. I'm not sure this is resolved. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics#Conclusions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics#Conclu... > Or is it that energy can have mass prior to being converted under some conditions? Using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalenc... you can (theoretically) convert between energy and mass, and then measure everything as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt. I have yet to see anything create protons from energy, so I am hesitant to do this.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    > I have yet to see anything create protons from energy, so I am hesitant to do this. Won't a proton/antiproton annihilation also create two photons? If so, wouldn't that also work in reverse?
    - dekken_ 5y ago
      > Won't a proton/antiproton annihilation also create two photons? I expect it would make a lot more than just two photons. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#Proton%E2%80%93antiproton_annihilation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#Proton%E2%80%93an... > If so, wouldn't that also work in reverse? It would have to be demonstrated.
      - TeMPOraL 5y ago
        Thanks, I didn't know proton/antiproton annihilation is so complex. But it makes sense.
  - pelorat 5y ago
    How do you think we got matter from the big bang?
    - dekken_ 5y ago
      I don't pay much attention to big bang things, as far as I'm concerned it's as unprovable as an infinite universe theory. I'm not sure we can ever know either way.
drdeca 5y ago
Wikipedia says "Even restricting the discussion to physics, scientists do not have a unique definition of what matter is." (in the sense of contrasting with antimatter), and then later says "In a wider sense, one can use the word matter simply to refer to fermions.". (Presumably this means, fermions and things comprised of fermions. One would not say that Helium-4 is not matter just because it is a boson (and is comprised of an even number of fermions).) Electrons are fermions. I am therefore comfortable saying that electrons are matter. I don't know why you say that electrons are "not particles" in QFT. Sure, there's an electron field, and electrons are just, like, excitations in that field. There's also a quark field. What of it? If you are saying "because everything is fields, there are therefore no particles, and therefore no matter", you are using the word "matter" in a silly way. Also, isn't a "particle" just a representation of a compact Lie group? What's the problem? (edit : though, I admit that I'd be a little hesitant about calling a massless fermion "matter". But, seeing as there are no known massless fermions, meh.)

You are positive you were told that electrons are matter maybe. This is the standard (see: current) model, in QFT electrons are not particles, so are not leptons, so are not matter.

petrocrat 5y ago

Is the mass measurement of electrons an abberation then in the QFT interpretation of the empirical data? Or is it that energy can have mass prior to being converted under some conditions?

dekken_ 5y ago
> Is the mass measurement of electrons an abberation then in the QFT interpretation of the empirical data. I'm not sure this is resolved. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics#Conclusions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics#Conclu... > Or is it that energy can have mass prior to being converted under some conditions? Using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalenc... you can (theoretically) convert between energy and mass, and then measure everything as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt. I have yet to see anything create protons from energy, so I am hesitant to do this.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  > I have yet to see anything create protons from energy, so I am hesitant to do this. Won't a proton/antiproton annihilation also create two photons? If so, wouldn't that also work in reverse?
  - dekken_ 5y ago
    > Won't a proton/antiproton annihilation also create two photons? I expect it would make a lot more than just two photons. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#Proton%E2%80%93antiproton_annihilation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#Proton%E2%80%93an... > If so, wouldn't that also work in reverse? It would have to be demonstrated.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      Thanks, I didn't know proton/antiproton annihilation is so complex. But it makes sense.
- pelorat 5y ago
  How do you think we got matter from the big bang?
  - dekken_ 5y ago
    I don't pay much attention to big bang things, as far as I'm concerned it's as unprovable as an infinite universe theory. I'm not sure we can ever know either way.

drdeca 5y ago

Wikipedia says "Even restricting the discussion to physics, scientists do not have a unique definition of what matter is." (in the sense of contrasting with antimatter), and then later says "In a wider sense, one can use the word matter simply to refer to fermions.". (Presumably this means, fermions and things comprised of fermions. One would not say that Helium-4 is not matter just because it is a boson (and is comprised of an even number of fermions).) Electrons are fermions. I am therefore comfortable saying that electrons are matter. I don't know why you say that electrons are "not particles" in QFT. Sure, there's an electron field, and electrons are just, like, excitations in that field. There's also a quark field. What of it? If you are saying "because everything is fields, there are therefore no particles, and therefore no matter", you are using the word "matter" in a silly way. Also, isn't a "particle" just a representation of a compact Lie group? What's the problem? (edit : though, I admit that I'd be a little hesitant about calling a massless fermion "matter". But, seeing as there are no known massless fermions, meh.)