Notices
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Elementary particle?

  1. #1 Elementary particle? 
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Does the equation E=mc^2 mean that all matter can be converted to energy and therefore there is no elementary particle?

    When a particle and its' anti-particle collide, 100% of the mass is converted to energy, doesn't this also prove no elementary particle exists?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    15
    The equation E=mc^2 means that mass and energy are equivalent.
    Also when a particle and its anti-particle collide,100% of the mass is converted to energy.

    The above statements can't prove that elementary particles do not exist.
    There isn't only one elementary particle according to the quantum theory, so that electrons and quarks are all elementary particles.
    In general elementary particles are the smallest parts of our world.

    I don't know if I was of any help but I don't think I understand your statement completely.
    If you have any further questions just send me a p.m.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    What he meant was that the particles was just a bunch of energy. Photons, and all they do is act like waves. It seems that photons are created when some kind of particles collide along a fourth coordinate, and spread through the room, else momentum would not be preserved. So matter is simply a vibration/motion* along the time coordinate, and everything is simply photons. The smallest photon has the mass h/c^2.

    *Since lightspeed along the time coordinate turns it infinitely thin, It is hard to say if the particles need to vibrate, rather then just move forward or backwards through time, hence sometimes colliding with eachother.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by tasos
    The equation E=mc^2 means that mass and energy are equivalent.
    Also when a particle and its anti-particle collide,100% of the mass is converted to energy.

    The above statements can't prove that elementary particles do not exist.
    There isn't only one elementary particle according to the quantum theory, so that electrons and quarks are all elementary particles.
    In general elementary particles are the smallest parts of our world.

    I don't know if I was of any help but I don't think I understand your statement completely.
    If you have any further questions just send me a p.m.
    It helps a bit, I still have a hard time understanding the concept of elementary particles. Electrons are destroyed in collisions with positrons which to my mind would eliminate them as elementary. Quarks are also probably made up of smaller "particles" and so on down to the Planck length.

    I have a hard time with QM, I find all the particle/wave stuff confusing, so I'm probably not asking the question right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    They are not destroyed, they are transformed into photons. In the photons perspective one length coordinate is infinitely thin, but not time, time becomes just like a room coordinate. Since the photon don't have full time vektor, time is no longer infinitely thin. So the particle is really still a particle, every particle is a photon and the other way around. It just switch time dimension.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    They're destroyed in the sense that they no longer have the spin, charge and mass they did. Maybe it's more accurate to say the quantum state is destroyed, in which case is the same as saying the particle is destroyed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Perhaps that is interconnected with what timedimension the particles have. Through a shiffer, light beams spread, could that be compared with electromagnetic force for instance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Darcgrey: No. Energy is not a thing. Things have energy. It's a property. Photons have energy, but they're not energy. Electrons have energy, plus other properties. You can convert an Electron and a Positron into Photons, but you can never hold pure energy in the palm of your hand. It's like red. Things can be red, but you can't have the red without the thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Sounds ok.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Darcgrey: No. Energy is not a thing. Things have energy. It's a property. Photons have energy, but they're not energy. Electrons have energy, plus other properties. You can convert an Electron and a Positron into Photons, but you can never hold pure energy in the palm of your hand. It's like red. Things can be red, but you can't have the red without the thing.
    I'm a little confused on the subject. If E=mc^2 then isn't energy equivalent to matter? If you can convert matter to energy then shouldn't it be possible to do the reverse. So while you can't hold energy as you say, it does have the potential to become material with material properties.

    Or maybe I'm looking at it wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Well, no your looking at it right!

    E ~ m

    You could say that energy is the property of itself. All there is is energy, and that is its only property. Energy what energy does. Energy is what mass does, energy is mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    I kind of see what you're saying, but I still find it confusing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Yes, it is confusing

    The universe cannot be explored fully of a part, and all parts are equally confusing for that part. When it comes down to it, there is nothing that we really understand to the fully, we only like or dislike. The true name of a thing cannot be pronounsed. Cause it change with time
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •