- #1
Norrin Radd
- 15
- 0
Since everything is energy, can fermions and bosons be (theoretically) converted to energy too?
Norrin Radd said:Since everything is energy, can fermions and bosons be (theoretically) converted to energy too?
Particles have energy - their energy is one of their properties, energy is not an object that could get created.converted to energy
Norrin Radd said:Why can't everything be "traced" back to energy when everything was caused by Big Bang?
Isn't Big Bang like a energy-soup eruption?
Norrin Radd said:Even the spacetime originated through Big-Bang, how does that work?
Norrin Radd said:Even the spacetime originated through Big-Bang, how does that work?
Norrin Radd said:So Space, Time, Mass, Energy and The Fundamental Forces are separate fundamental entities... These are the most fundamental things, right?
ChrisVer said:you can;t take out 5 words and call them the fundamental entities, because we don't know what is actually fundamental. Maybe the fundamental forces are a remain of space compactification, maybe they are not.
phinds said:Well, those and pizza.
ChrisVer said:you can;t take out 5 words and call them the fundamental entities, because we don't know what is actually fundamental. Maybe the fundamental forces are a remain of space compactification, maybe they are not.
phinds said:Yes, my statement does take the Standard Model to show the fundamental particles and I do take the fundamental forces to be fundamental.
Norrin Radd said:Is there any other entity that should be added to the list? Or is the list complete?
ChrisVer said:First of all, please define to me what you mean by fundamental then...
Standard Model (for me) is not fundamental because I don't see it as a complete theory - although totally experimentally verified it leaves many windows opened. So how am I supposed to call it fundamental? there is more to be found within...
In addition, if the fundamental forces were once unified, or were once a part of extra dimensions, this would mean that the theory can be more fundamental... The idea is based simply to the fact that in the past, atoms were considered fundamental... then electrons and nucleons... and so on...
Eg if the resulting fundamental forces come from the spacetime compactification, then for me, fundamental would be the spacetime geometry (not the forces)
ChrisVer said:Yes that's what I meant by extra dimensions.
What if they have been discovered? The atom has been discovered as well, it's not fundamental. I'm not saying that the particles are composite, but I'm saying there is a deeper meaning to their existence. If the extra dimensions exist, as I noted above, and their compactification gives you the appropriate fields, then the fields are a result of the curled up manifold's geometry... thus they stop being fundamental for me, but they are a result of the spacetime structure.
I am not saying that extra dimension theories are correct...
My problem was with your question about that list of 5 things being the most fundamental things. No they, in fact, are not.
phinds said:Not that I can think of offhand but I would change "space" and "time" to space-time. Thinking of them as separate is classical physics and can cause problems in real world cosmology. It's like thinking of an electron as a particle AND a wave. Actually, it's not either one. It's a quantum object.
mfb said:Why energy, why not momentum?
Or, better, unify both.
jedishrfu said:Welcome to PF!
The notion of everything is energy is wrong and is the wrong way to look at things...
Fermions and Bosons are particles that behave in certain ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermions
vs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosons
Electrons are the most notable fermions and photons are the most notable bosons.
Given that what is your question?
mfb said:To extend jedishfu's answer:
Particles have energy - their energy is one of their properties, energy is not an object that could get created.
As a comparison, an apple has a color - and you cannot "convert an apple to color".
Norrin Radd said:So you're suggesting that gauge bosons function like the Higgs Boson...interacting with a field, right?
ChrisVer said:ehmmm... what do you mean by suggesting? I don't think I said something like that, but yes... that's a fact... gauge bosons interact with fields.
mfb said:Why energy, why not momentum?
Or, better, unify both.
phinds said:Come to think of it, I think I would say matter, not mass. I think mass is an emergent property of matter, caused by the Higgs field.
That's philosophy.Norrin Radd said:Is momentum fundamental?
Only if you neglect special relativity. And there is a similar relation between mass, velocity and energy. So what?Momentum is the product of mass and velocity, right?
Quanta of energy of a particular kind of field are just a different way to say "particles"."In particle physics, force carriers are particles that give rise to forces between other particles. These particles are bundles of energy (quanta) of a particular kind of field." -Wikipedia
What about this then?
Sure they do.gauge bosons don't "interact" per se
mfb said:Only if you neglect special relativity. And there is a similar relation between mass, velocity and energy. So what?
mfb said:Quanta of energy of a particular kind of field are just a different way to say "particles".
mfb said:Sure they do.
This is getting more and more philosophical, and it is pointless to discuss philosophy I think.
I don't think that question makes sense.Norrin Radd said:Random (and probably stupid) question...
Is energy particulate too?
Particles do not have "purpose" in physics.Hypothetical situation: If there's no higgs field, would the higgs boson serve any purpose?
Norrin Radd said:Is that how it works? As far as I know, gauge bosons are the quantum of their respective fields...while Higgs Boson interacts with the Higgs field to "impart" mass to particles...gauge bosons don't "interact" per se; although they form their respective fields.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Also since I've failed to understand what you're trying to convey...please elucidate.
mfb said:Particles do not have "purpose" in physics.
Without higgs field there would be no higgs boson and vice versa. Fields and their corresponding particles usually come together. This is not restricted to bosons, it is also true for all fermions.
Norrin Radd said:See, Higgs Boson interacts with Higgs Field to impart mass to particles.
I don't understand that analogy.Norrin Radd said:It's like Higgs Field is the signal tower, while the Higgs Boson is a SIM card.
Fermions and bosons are two types of particles that make up the building blocks of matter. Fermions include particles such as electrons, protons, and neutrons, while bosons include particles such as photons and gluons.
Yes, fermions and bosons can be converted to energy through processes such as nuclear fusion or fission. In these processes, the mass of the particles is converted into energy according to Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2.
The main difference between fermions and bosons is their spin. Fermions have half-integer spin, while bosons have integer spin. This difference in spin leads to different behaviors and properties of these particles.
No, fermions and bosons cannot be converted into each other. This is because they have different spin values and other fundamental properties that make them distinct from each other.
Fermions and bosons have many important applications in various fields of science and technology. For example, fermions are essential for the functioning of electronic devices, while bosons play a crucial role in technologies such as lasers and superconductors.