Most simple elementary particle combination for the big bang.

[Sorcerer]

I just got myself lost in The Standard Model. I started with trying to understand why baryon number must be conserved and why protons can't decay, then confused the hell out of myself as to why mesons can exist then, if solitary quarks cannot.

Anyway since my heads spinning with this mess of a model, I want to ask the original question I was trying to answer.

 

If we could reduce all particle types down to their minimum constituents, which particles would remain?
If these particles were the only ones in existence at the moment of the big bang, would they be capable of forming the makeup of particles in the universe we see now?

E= Mc^2 shows that matter and energy are interchangeable. (I'm guessing because I need the questions above answered first). But if it all came down to photons and bosons (I don't even know why mesons are in that group, something to do with spin, just messy, same applies for composite fermions, the grouping doesn't seem necessary), could all the matter we observe today be created in those high energies?

It was also interesting to read about the Pauli exclusion principle. If two fermions cannot occupy the same space and fermions are constituents of baryons. Then in an infinitely dense singularity, wouldn't the only possible thing which could exist and occupy that space be bosons?

Another question that arose from that speculation (still need the first two questions answered ) is that if baryon number must be conserved and baryons can't be present in a singularity due to the Pauli exclusion principle, then where do baryons exist in black holes? Doesn't that mean they must decay? Doesn't that mean the conservation of baryon number should be scrapped?

Oh, I almost forgot, since everything has an antiparticle except photons and bosons, is there an inverse E=Mc^2 equation, which allows them to produce antimatter? Does that mean that photons and bosons are their own antiparticle?

Edited June 7, 2015 by Sorcerer

[ajb]

I started with trying to understand why baryon number must be conserved...

Baryon number is essentially the number of quarks and the conservation of the number of quarks is related to conservation of colour charge.

 

 

If we could reduce all particle types down to their minimum constituents, which particles would remain?

As far as we know right now, the particles of the standard model.

 

If these particles were the only ones in existance at the moment of the big bang...

You should read up on electroweak symmetry breaking.

 

It is thought that the standard model is only a low energy limit of some wider theory. In the very very early universe more exotic particles could have existed, but as the Universe cooled the theory became the standard model as we know it.

 

But if it all came down to photons and bosons

We need fundamental fermions like the electron as these build matter while the fundamental bosons are the forces.

 

It was also interesting to read about the Pauli exclusion principle. If two fermions cannot occupy the same space and fermions are constituents of baryons. Then in an infinitely dense singularity, wouldn't the only possible thing which could exist and occupy that space be bosons?

Physicists accept that the classical singularity inside a black hole is probably not a real singularity as quantum effects of space-time may regulate this singularity.

 

The other thing you should look up are Cooper pairs. It is possible under some quite generic conditions for fermion pairs to act like bosons.

 

Oh, I almost forgot, since everything has an antiparticle except photons and bosons, is there an inverse E=Mc^2 equation, which allows them to produce antimatter? Does that mean that photons and bosons are their own antiparticle?

You usually consider antiparticles of electrically neutral particle to be the same as the particles.

[Sorcerer]

On my confusion over composite bosons and fermions. Is there a Ven diagram somewhere which would show all this interconnectedness?

We need fundamental fermions like the electron as these build matter while the fundamental bosons are the forces.

 

Can you explain to me, why the equation E=Mc² wouldn't allow bosons to be interchangeable with fermions at the high energies which existed in the big bang? And since -E = -Mc² (I don't trust my math when I've been drinking lol, wait I got it, thats a quadratic?), why can't the bosons (which are their own anitparticle) produce the anti particles in the fermion group?

Wouldn't the Pauli exclusion principle prevent fermions being first?

thanks ajb, in your opinion is the standard model going the way of Newtons theory of gravity with regards to Einsteins? What model would you pick for the next best thing?

I'll look into electroweak symmetry breaking, but maybe once my heads stopping humming from the standard model.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Sorcerer

[ajb]

On my confusion over composite bosons and fermions. Is there a Ven diagram somewhere which would show all this interconnectedness?

If the total spin is integer then you have a boson and if the total spin is half integer you have a fermion.

 

Can you explain to me, why the equation E=Mc² wouldn't allow bosons to be interchangeable with fermions at the high energies which existed in the big bang?

Conservation of total angular momentum I guess. The equation you give does not allow you to simply interchange mass and energy. What it does tell you is that mass should be taken into account when looking at the total energy of a system.

 

If you want to interchange fermions and bosons then you need a very non-classical symmetry known as supersymmetry.

 

And since -E = -Mc² (I don't trust my math when I've been drinking lol), the bosons which are their own anitparticle as produce the anti fermions?

You have just multiplied both sides of the equation by -1. I don't see any physical relevance of doing so.

 

Wouldn't the Pauli exclusion principle prevent fermions being first?

I don't see why.

 

thanks ajb, in your opinion is the standard model going the way of Newtons theory of gravity with regards to Einsteins? What model would your pick for the next best thing?

It is kind of going that way. We know for several reasons that the standard model is only an effective model and that something wider should replace it. The next best thing is another effective theory that allows us to describe higher energies. The best candidate right now is some supersymmetric extension of the standard model. Lets see what CERN kicks up over the next couple of years.

 

I'll look into electroweak symmetry breaking, but maybe once my heads stopping humming from the standard model.

Symmetry breaking is an essential part of the standard model and electroweak unification. We expect that similar things happen with the strong force.

 

In fact, if you look at supersymmetric extensions of the standard model you see that at some energy the coupling constants of the electromagnetism, the weak and strong force are all the same. Thus, it is expected that there is some supersymmetric unification scheme; some supersymmetric model that unites the forces apart from gravity. Gravity seems to be the odd one out here.

[Sorcerer]

If the total spin is integer then you have a boson and if the total spin is half integer you have a fermion.

 

I asked doctor google and found that venn diagram, it helped slightly.

 

Conservation of total angular momentum I guess. The equation you give does not allow you to simply interchange mass and energy. What it does tell you is that mass should be taken into account when looking at the total energy of a system.

 

If you want to interchange fermions and bosons then you need a very non-classical symmetry known as supersymmetry.

 

So under super symmetry, I can fit my pet theory lol.... I know that's not how science works, but I have a very visual way of thinking and many other ideas of mine all flow off the one matter and energy inter conversion.

 

You have just multiplied both sides of the equation by -1. I don't see any physical relevance of doing so.

 

lol yes, I realise this, like I say I don't trust my maths when drinking. Maybe you can help me out, since E=Mc² is derirved from a quadratic equation, what is the other solution? It just seems odd to me that if a particle and an antiparticle, can annihilate to produce energy, that the opposite where energy, creates a particle anti particle pair wouldn't be possible. As with virtual particles they would annihilate again, since they would be created close, but in the big bang space is expanding so fast they would be removed from each other and unable to annihilate.

 

 

I don't see why.

So, we assume the moment of the big bang, the universe existed as a singularity. In this state fermions could not exist, because they would be occupying the same space. Bosons however could exist.

I also am either to stupid to use multiquote or its not supported in this browser.......

Edited June 7, 2015 by Sorcerer

[ajb]

Maybe you can help me out, since E=Mc² is derirved from a quadratic equation, what is the other solution?

The full equation for the energy of a free particle is

 

[math]

E^{2}- p^{2}c^{2} = m^{2}c^{4}

[/math]

 

You would now like to write E in terms of p and m;

 

[math]

E = \pm \sqrt{m^{2}c^{4}+ p^{2}c^{2}}

[/math]

 

Mathematically you get two solutions positive and negative. It is this negative that is problematic and the 'source' of antiparticles.

 

In quantum field theory you can interpret these negative energy solutions and positive energy antiparticles. In short antiparticles are enforced upon us by special relativity.

 

 

So, we assume the moment of the big bang, the universe existed as a singularity. In this state fermions could not exist, because they would be occupying the same space. Bosons however could exist.

We don't know how to handle the theory act a singularity, in fact the theory breaks down catastrophically. You cannot really make statements like you have about an epoch that is just not understood.

Edited June 7, 2015 by ajb

[Sorcerer]

Well, I'd kind of rather make those speculative statements than just say, "I don't know, therefore god". But yes, I still don't know, but I like the idea.

I just feel the idea that spatial expansion and creation of mass from energy are interconnected contains some kind of special beauty. To me it's appealing since it leads to a cyclic universe which conserves all energy and also resets entropy. But I won't get into that one, because violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics is another huge topic.

I'll die before we ever know, at best we'll just have the next best (or maybe the one after that) approximation of the truth.

Anyway thanks for helping this drunken armchair physicist out

[ajb]

Well, I'd kind of rather make those speculative statements than just say, "I don't know, therefore god". But yes, I still don't know, but I like the idea.

There is nothing wrong with saying "we do not know (yet)".

 

 

I just feel the idea that spatial expansion and creation of mass from energy are interconnected contains some kind of special beauty. To me it's appealing since it leads to a cyclic universe which conserves all energy and also resets entropy. But I won't get into that one, because violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics is another huge topic.

We have particle creation by time dependent gravitational fields such as those found in the FWR cosmologies; this starts to sound a bit like what you are saying.

[Sorcerer]

The full equation for the energy of a free particle is

 

[math]

E^{2}- p^{2}c^{2} = m^{2}c^{4}

[/math]

 

You would now like to write E in terms of p and m;

 

[math]

E = \pm \sqrt{m^{2}c^{4}+ p^{2}c^{2}}

[/math]

 

Mathematically you get two solutions positive and negative. It is this negative that is problematic and the 'source' of antiparticles.

 

In quantum field theory you can interpret these negative energy solutions and positive energy antiparticles. In short antiparticles are enforced upon us by special relativity.

But they're not just "FORCED" upon us, because we have measured them experimentally right?

[ajb]

But they're not just "FORCED" upon us, because we have measured them experimentally right?

Maybe bad wording by me. Local Poincare invariance, means that we have to deal with antiparticles. They are indeed realised in nature and we see them.

[Sorcerer]

There is nothing wrong with saying "we do not know (yet)".

 

 

 

We have particle creation by time dependent gravitational fields such as those found in the FWR cosmologies; this starts to sound a bit like what you are saying.

It's my personal opinion, that as biological beings, not adapted for these questions, the graph of knowledge and certainty assymptotes somewhere before truth. Perhaps we can create a hitch hikers guide style AI to help us out, but just like "42", who says we'll be capable of understanding the answer, or even asking the question.

 

Well, my personal pet theory is that the inflaton (which I also think is involved in dark energy observations), lends energy to the creation of mass and that energy is depleted in the process, it also creates the conditions where by VP pairs cannot annihilate, by expanding the space between them so fast that they never meet. So as expansion accelerates, the creation of mass increases, sometimes it just pulls in the reigns and slows inflation back to a trickle, but other times it can reach a critical value instantaneously everywhere and crunch back in on itself.

 

Edit: disregard instantaneously everywhere, that makes no sense relativistically - or does it, if everything is receeding from everything else at faster than the speed of light due to spatial expansion? Wouldn't every particle all observe the same frame of reference, which would be none, because no light could reach them.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Sorcerer

[ajb]

Well, my personal pet theory is that the inflaton (which I also think is involved in dark energy observations), lends energy to the creation of mass, while also creating the conditions where by VP pairs cannot annihilate. So as expansion accelerates, the creation of mass increases, sometimes it just pulls in the reigns and slows inflation back to a trickle, but other times it can reach a critical value instananeously everywhere and crunch back in on itself.

You should discuss that in the speculations section really. Maybe we could here if you had a reasonable model.

 

However, a couple of things to think about.

 

i) Inflation and the current expansion of the Universe are generally considered to be separate phenomena. The main reason for this is the energy scales involved. However, people have worked on the idea that they are related.

ii) I expect you mean creation of particles and not mass? We don't have energy conservation in an expanding Universe and particles can be created by gravitational fields. It is important to realise that we do not generally have a canonical vacuum when dealing with QFT on a curved space time. Any chosen vacuum will not be invariant under diffeomorphsms. This means that even if we chose a state consisting of just particles, to some other observer that state could contain antiparticles or even be a vacuum. In reverse, what we see as a vacuum could be filled with particles when someone else observes it.

Edit: disregard instantaneously everywhere, that makes no sense relativistically - or does it, if everything is receeding from everything else at faster than the speed of light due to spatial expansion? Wouldn't every particle all observe the same frame of reference, which would be none, because no light could reach them.

Instantaneous does not make sense, even if we can make some meaningful notion of 'now' globally.

[Sorcerer]

i) The energy discrepancies involved between inflation and dark energy are directly related to what I was getting at earlier, the universe begins with only bosons, this means there is an over abundance of inflatons. Inflation is initially very rapid but as fermions are created from the energy removed from the inflaton scalar field and allowed to stay in existence, (via inflation preventing their annihlation), inflation slows down.

After this initial burst the massive fermions are able to exert a gravitational field on space via the higgs field. Matter begins to clump, baryons are assembled, and photons decouple from the plasma (standard cosmological stuff). After the initial inflation there is a gradual return of energy via fermions decaying or meeting their anti particle (the probability is increased due to clumping of matter via gravity) and giving energy back to the inflaton field. This is directly proportional to a loss of their influence gravity on gravity via the higgs field. This gradual return or trickle effect is the cause of the gradually accelerating expansion we observe. At some point in the future the inflaton field will again be strong enough to overcome the higgs and cause a second inflation. This inflate and stop, trickle back up, can repeat many times, but it's also possible for it to completely exhaust the inflaton field and strengthen the higgs to a point where a big crunch occurs. And repeat.

ii)When bosons create a fermion pair, no mass or energy is added to or subtracted from the universe right? But the higgs field effects fermions, but not bosons, correct?

Just as particles can be created by gravity, so they too can be created by inflation. Gravity can pull a VP pair apart so they cannot annihilate, while inflation pushes a VP pair apart. They're inverse and two sides of a symmetry.

You kind of lost me with the relativity stuff, but inflation flattens space time. And causality is all the matters, independant observers can see what they like yet still experience they same fate.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Sorcerer

[ajb]

In the standard model the Higgs gives mass to the W and Z bosons and the fundamental fermions; the quarks and leptons. The initial interest in Higgs models was to give mass to gauge bosons in a consistent way, but it was realised that the same mechanism can give mass to fermions.

 

You should start a new thread in speculations on your theory. If not I am sure some of what we have said will get 'cut and pasted' to speculations. You have started with reasonable physics questions but are now driving the direction towards your 'pet theory'. This is not really in line with the rules of this forum.

[Sorcerer]

Yeah all good, gonna go rest anyway, nice talking to you.

Evidence found for the Higgs boson direct decay into fermions Jun 22, 2014

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-evidence-higgs-boson-fermions.html

Edited June 7, 2015 by Sorcerer

[Strange]

Maybe you can help me out, since E=Mc² is derirved from a quadratic equation, what is the other solution? It just seems odd to me that if a particle and an antiparticle, can annihilate to produce energy, that the opposite where energy, creates a particle anti particle pair wouldn't be possible.

 

It is possible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production