How is matter created from energy?
Two Powerful gamma ray photons were collided to create leptons such as electrons. but how would the process work for quarks? Would one have to collide two gluons (IDK if that's possible considering gluons can never exist independently) or some other boson? And would it be possible to generate a fermion without creating an antiparticle to cancel it out?
Quarks can't exist independently, either (afaik). If you try to pull them apart (say, in a proton), the binding energy (gluon exchange) increases until that energy "condenses" into a quark-antiquark pair (I imagine, then, the particles probably annihilate each other). And I don't think it's possible to create a fermion w/o its antiparticle because you don't have a balance of charges (ie, out of the "neutrality" of photons, you can't get just a "+" w/o a "-" when the fermions form).
Okay, Astner. I gave it my best shot. You're up.
Re: How is matter created from energy?
I worked to 22:00, I get home now, I have to wake up 5:00 for work tomorrow, and now this is up.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Two Powerful gamma ray photons were collided to create leptons such as electrons.
Originally posted by Lestov16
but how would the process work for quarks?
You are able to create top- and anti-top quarks via the weak force and the strong force, the latter being more energy-costly.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Would one have to collide two gluons (IDK if that's possible considering gluons can never exist independently)
Originally posted by Lestov16
And would it be possible to generate a fermion without creating an antiparticle to cancel it out?
Originally posted by Astner
which in turn means that the volume is optically inverted.
what do you mean by optically? My only understanding of the term comes from vision, so I'm curious.
are you just saying one of your measuring scales looks backward? is backward?
Originally posted by Astner
Theoretically you could create quarks in a similar manner, though you'd need more energy and other conditions.
this would be the quark-gluon plasma, no?
Originally posted by Oliver North
what do you mean by optically? My only understanding of the term comes from vision, so I'm curious.
Let your fingers span the coordinate system as in the picture above.
Now let's say that you want your index finger (the x-axis) to point in the opposite direction. You can do this by either rotating your hand around the y- or z-axis (FU-finger and thumb respectively) 180 degrees. But if you rotate your coordinate system around the y-axis 180 degrees the z-axis will also point in the opposite direction (vice versa if you rotate around the z-axis).
In short, there's no way you could make it so the x-axis points backwards without affecting another axes. If you do get it wrong then it's said to be optically inverted.
Originally posted by Oliver North
this would be the quark-gluon plasma, no?
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
You sure about this?
A good example would be quarks and leptons, they don't have volume in the standard model, partially because volume at that scale is more or less meaningless but more importantly due to their vacuum polarization (a cloud of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs).
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Also, if particles can't have negative mass,
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
then what's the point of the Casimir effect? Does it indicate that only negative energy can exist but not negative matter?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oh, yes, let's discuss teleology with Astner.
This is exactly why I don't bother discussing physics with you people.
Originally posted by Astner
Negative mass means negative volume—since density is a nonnegative scalar—which in turn means that the volume is optically inverted.That said, particles doesn't have volume so they can't have negative mass.
But does it move slower than light? Even though it has a mass of -1, doesn't it still count as a tardyon because it's mass is not 0 (like a luxon), or imaginary (like a tachyon)?
Originally posted by Astner
Yes, that's the difference between a particle—formally referred to as a point particle to not be confused with chemistry jargon—and a body in physics.A good example would be quarks and leptons, they don't have volume in the standard model, partially because volume at that scale is more or less meaningless but more importantly due to their vacuum polarization (a cloud of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs).
Particles can have mass, they just don't have volume.
What the **** are you talking about? The Casimir effect occurs due to phase shifts, often referred to as vacuum energy.
Right, you're one of those astrologist who attributes every phenomena in nature to aether fluctuations.
This is exactly why I don't bother discussing physics with you people.
Originally posted by AstnerMy God, you need to lighten up.
Yes, that's the difference between a particle—formally referred to as a point particle to not be confused with chemistry jargon—and a body in physics.A good example would be quarks and leptons, they don't have volume in the standard model, partially because volume at that scale is more or less meaningless but more importantly due to their vacuum polarization (a cloud of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs).
Particles can have mass, they just don't have volume.
What the **** are you talking about? The Casimir effect occurs due to phase shifts, often referred to as vacuum energy.
Right, you're one of those astrologist who attributes every phenomena in nature to aether fluctuations.
This is exactly why I don't bother discussing physics with you people.