Protons: matter or anti-matter?

[Epaminondas]

Electron is annihilated by positron. Proton is annihilated by anti-proton. But neither proton, nor anti-proton annihilate electron (or positron). If we assume that electron relates to matter, how do we know what is matter and what is antimatter: proton or anti-proton? What if protons relate to antimatter, so that matter and anti-matter are balanced in the universe (at least in terms of the number of particles)?

 

[Drakkith]

What? I have no idea what you are trying to say in this post.

If we assume that electron relates to matter, how do we know what is matter and what is antimatter

I don't know what this means. Could you be a little more specific?

Edit: Alright, I think I understand a little bit of your post. Our terms for anti-matter and matter are simply based on what we see around us. We almost exclusively see ONLY protons and electrons, and almost none of anti-protons and anti-electrons (positrons). When we first discovered antimatter, we named it that. If we were to turn the universe around per say, and we were all made of anti protons and positrons, then our antimatter would be protons and electrons.

 

[Bill_K]

The fermions occur in three families, and the standard model requires the total charge of particles in each family to be zero. This is an absolute requirement for consistency, i.e. cancellation of anomalies.

First family is composed of electron (-1) plus up three up-quarks (3*(2/3) = 2) plus three down-quarks (3*(-1/3) = -1), which adds up to zero. (Each quark counts as three particles because they have three colors.) If the proton and antiproton were reversed, since anti-quarks carry the opposite charge it wouldn't work.

 

[Epaminondas]

What? I have no idea what you are trying to say in this post.



I don't know what this means. Could you be a little more specific?

Edit: Alright, I think I understand a little bit of your post. Our terms for anti-matter and matter are simply based on what we see around us. We almost exclusively see ONLY protons and electrons, and almost none of anti-protons and anti-electrons (positrons). When we first discovered antimatter, we named it that. If we were to turn the universe around per say, and we were all made of anti protons and positrons, then our antimatter would be protons and electrons.

Thanks, Drakkith. Your point is understood. But still my question is not answered. Disbalance of matter and antimatter is considered as one of the open questions in physics. This is probably because we say that electron and proton are both matter. If we consider electrons as matter, and protons as antimatter (regardless of intrinsic structure of proton), than there still will be a disbalance, but of different nature. Is there any objective way of classifying particles as matter and antimatter? If we didn't know that most of surrounding objects are made of protons, and the only things we observed were proton-antiproton and electron-positron pair production, shall we necessarily associate electron and proton with matter, and positron and anti-proton with antimatter? Why not vice versa (i.e. electron and antiproton - matter, positron and proton - antimatter)? There is more similarity between electron and antiproton, rather than between electron and proton (I mean the sign of the electric charge of course).

 

[Vanadium 50]

Bill K answered your question. You call call the proton and electron both matter, or both antimatter and be consistent. You cannot call the one of each and be consistent.

 

[Epaminondas]

Bill K answered your question. You call call the proton and electron both matter, or both antimatter and be consistent. You cannot call the one of each and be consistent.

Why cannot I call electron and antiproton matter? Or positron and proton antimatter?

 

[mathman]

Why cannot I call electron and antiproton matter? Or positron and proton antimatter?

You have my sympathy. I have been trying to push the idea that protons are matter and electrons are antimatter (you could switch if you are inclined to). My hypothesis is that right after the big bang, baryons (including protons) and anti-baryons were in balance (this part is generally accepted). A slight difference in the decay mechanism led to the net survival of baryons (also generally accepted). Under this model, electrons are part of the remnant of anti-baryon decay (my idea).

 

[Epaminondas]

The fermions occur in three families, and the standard model requires the total charge of particles in each family to be zero. This is an absolute requirement for consistency, i.e. cancellation of anomalies.

First family is composed of electron (-1) plus up three up-quarks (3*(2/3) = 2) plus three down-quarks (3*(-1/3) = -1), which adds up to zero. (Each quark counts as three particles because they have three colors.) If the proton and antiproton were reversed, since anti-quarks carry the opposite charge it wouldn't work.

For simplicity, let's say that first family is composed of electron (-1) and proton (+1), so that total charge is zero and anomalies can be cancelled. Does it mean that all particles from the first family are matter particles? Is there any physically grounded definition of matter and antimatter, which is not based on more frequent observation of protons rather than antiprotons in the universe?

 

[Epaminondas]

You have my sympathy. I have been trying to push the idea that protons are matter and electrons are antimatter (you could switch if you are inclined to). My hypothesis is that right after the big bang, baryons (including protons) and anti-baryons were in balance (this part is generally accepted). A slight difference in the decay mechanism led to the net survival of baryons (also generally accepted). Under this model, electrons are part of the remnant of anti-baryon decay (my idea).

That's an interesting model, mathman. I also have an idea about all this, but this idea resulted from my recent attempts to develop the correct model of electron. In this model an electron is not a point-like particle, but spatial distribution of charge and flux densities. It is interesting that along with the "normal" solution that (presumably) corresponds to electron, I always obtain "abnormal" solution. When I say "normal" I mean that 4-vector of charge and flux density is time-like. "Abnormal" solution correspond to space-like values of this 4-vector. Instead of discarding the abnormal solution, I spent much time on thinking of its physical meaning.

My conclusion is that abnormal solution corresponds to proton. Why is that?

First of all, I have calculated the electric potential for "abnormal" particle. On the far distance it looks almost the same as for electron. But on the short distance it does not go to infinity, but looks like sharp-cornered potential well. This explains why protons repulse each other on the long distance, but can form stable pairs, triplets etc. (i.e. nuclei).

Secondly, it explains the "quark confinement". Experiments show that proton consists of 3 quarks, but bare quarks cannot be observed. It looks like if we observed a space-like particle. Space-like particles can be at different places at the same time, so that we can "observe" 3 particles (quarks) at a time instead of one. On the other hand, you will never be able to "extract" a single "quark" from that triplet, because there are no 3 separate time-like quarks, but there is only one space-like particle.

Thirdly, it helps to resolve matter/antimatter imbalance problem without introducing artificial differences between matter and antimatter. We can say that we have equal number of time-like "matter" particles and space-like "antimatter" particles.

So, in brief, my idea is that protons are tahions. I know that it sounds very strange, so I'm working on rigorous deduction of this conclusion from my model.

 

[Drakkith]

Why cannot I call electron and antiproton matter? Or positron and proton antimatter?

YOU can call it whatever you want. Mainstream science calls the positively charged particle at the center of atoms a Proton and the negatively charged particle that surrounds the nucleus of an atom an Electron. Note that this is the ONLY combination of particles that forms a stable form other than the direct opposite, anti-protons with anti-electrons. Any combination of electrons and positrons, protons and positrons, electrons and anti-protons, ETC, will either not form bonds or will not be stable and will annihilate.

Space-like particles can be at different places at the same time, so that we can "observe" 3 particles (quarks) at a time instead of one. On the other hand, you will never be able to "extract" a single "quark" from that triplet, because there are no 3 separate time-like quarks, but there is only one space-like particle.

So how can you explain the formation of hundreds of different unstable particles that made up the "Particle Zoo" back before we realized that quarks existed?

Thirdly, it helps to resolve matter/antimatter imbalance problem without introducing artificial differences between matter and antimatter. We can say that we have equal number of time-like "matter" particles and space-like "antimatter" particles.

What artificial differences? There are very real differences between matter and antimatter.

This explains why protons repulse each other on the long distance, but can form stable pairs, triplets etc.

No, the strong force explains this. It also explains the immense amount of energy needed to break nucleons apart and form other particles. Also, how would you explain the attraction of a neutron to protons and other neutrons since it isn't a charged particle and isn't made up of charged particles in your model.

 

[Epaminondas]

YOU can call it whatever you want.

It does matter how we call it, because when we talk about matter/antimatter imbalance, it is means that "there are more matter than antimatter". This is because we consider both e- and p+ as matter. If we will consider e- as matter and p+ as antimatter, then there will be no imbalance.

So how can you explain the formation of hundreds of different unstable particles that made up the "Particle Zoo" back before we realized that quarks existed?

Do you know how Feinman explained pair production in QED? He was considering the path of the space-like particle, that moves (a) forward in time, then (b) backward in time, and again (c) forward in time. It looks like there is a single particle at the beginning, then we see an "old" particle together with "particle-antiparticle" pair, then antiparticle annihilates with old particle, and at the end we have only a "new particle" from the pair.Exactly: two quarks and one antiquark! As for unstable particles, it is something that can easily be explained: they are particles that are temporarily accelerated above speed of light in the field of proton.

What artificial differences? There are very real differences between matter and antimatter.

Here I mean that some theories tell us that after the Big Bang decay of matter was different from decay of antimatter, resulting in more matter in the universe.

No, the strong force explains this. It also explains the immense amount of energy needed to break nucleons apart and form other particles. Also, how would you explain the attraction of a neutron to protons and other neutrons since it isn't a charged particle and isn't made up of charged particles in your model.

Please note that neutron is not necessarily 100% neutral, just like hydrogen atom is neutral only on average, but it has positively charged proton in the center and negatively charged electron around it.

As for the strong forces: did you see any quark or gluon? However, I believe that QCD is a good approximation, because I see that my model of proton corresponds to representation of the Lorentz group that is isomorphic to fundamental representation of SU(3).

 

[Drakkith]

It does matter how we call it, because when we talk about matter/antimatter imbalance, it is means that "there are more matter than antimatter". This is because we consider both e- and p+ as matter. If we will consider e- as matter and p+ as antimatter, then there will be no imbalance.

So what would you consider E+ and P- then? And we would STILL be asking the same question. Why are there more E- than E+ and more P+ than P- in the universe. And since an electron and a proton are not antiparticles of each other, it makes no sense to call one of them antimatter and the other not.

Here I mean that some theories tell us that after the Big Bang decay of matter was different from decay of antimatter, resulting in more matter in the universe.

We don't know yet, that is why we are looking.

Please note that neutron is not necessarily 100% neutral, just like hydrogen atom is neutral only on average, but it has positively charged proton in the center and negatively charged electron around it.

Got any evidence of this? Can you give me some kind of wavelength equation or whatever that will show the electron around the proton, and also why this doesn't happen in something like a Hydrogen atom?

As for unstable particles, it is something that can easily be explained: they are particles that are temporarily accelerated above speed of light in the field of proton.

So you want to ignore known rules of nature then? I was pretty sure that anything with mass cannot move at light speed...let alone above that.

 

[Epaminondas]

So what would you consider E+ and P- then? And we would STILL be asking the same question. Why are there more E- than E+ and more P+ than P- in the universe.

Good, very good. But that's a different question leading to different physics! I don't know the answer, but I feel that it is somehow related to direction of time.

I see that you understand my point now.

 

[Epaminondas]

So you want to ignore known rules of nature then? I was pretty sure that anything with mass cannot move at light speed...let alone above that.

well, it depends on what you mean by mass. It's a different topic, of course, but let me remind you only one thing: in Dirac theory an electron is always moving at the speed of light. But since its path is not a straight line, but an oscillating curve, "on average" it is moving slower than speed of light. So, mass can be interpreted as the property of moving slower than light on average.

Edit: by the way, oscillations of electron cause spin.

 

[Drakkith]

Good, very good. But that's a different question leading to different physics! I don't know the answer, but I feel that it is somehow related to direction of time.

I see that you understand my point now.

I don't see the significance of relabeling matter and antimatter for absolutely no reason. We have a definition for matter and another one for antimatter. Why would it need to change? What would it accomplish? You asked what made matter different from antimatter. The fact that we observe matter almost exclusively is the whole reason we call antimatter by its name. Matter and antimatter could easily all be called matter.

 

[Drakkith]

well, it depends on what you mean by mass. It's a different topic, of course, but let me remind you only one thing: in Dirac theory an electron is always moving at the speed of light. But since its path is not a straight line, but an oscillating curve, "on average" it is moving slower than speed of light. So, mass can be interpreted as the property of moving slower than light on average.

Edit: by the way, oscillations of electron cause spin.

I don't know anything about Dirac theory, so I can't comment on it.

 

[Epaminondas]

I don't know anything about Dirac theory, so I can't comment on it.

Dirac equation is fundamental for the Standard Model and QED (as part of it) in particular, isn't it?

 

[Drakkith]

Dirac equation is fundamental for the Standard Model and QED (as part of it) in particular, isn't it?

I have no idea.

 

[Epaminondas]

I have no idea.

Ok, Anyway thanks for your feedback!

 

[Drakkith]

Can you answer why you think it is better to change the names of matter and antimatter? What purpose would it serve?

 

[Epaminondas]

Can you answer why you think it is better to change the names of matter and antimatter? What purpose would it serve?

Its not about changing the name. Just imagine the following picture:

The Big Bang (or whatever it was) creates equal number of matter and antimatter. Say, matter is negatively charged, and antimatter is charged positively.

My point is that for some reason after the Big Bang matter particles become time-like (thus forming electrons), and anti-matter particles become space-like (protons).

Does it make sense to you? It is completely different from generally accepted picture of the universe creation.

 

[Vanadium 50]

For simplicity, let's say that first family is composed of electron (-1) and proton (+1), so that total charge is zero and anomalies can be cancelled.

You can't do that, since that family has quarks in it.

 

[Epaminondas]

You can't do that, since that family has quarks in it.

Well, let's say that "proton" ia just a group name for all quarks in a family.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, let's say that "proton" ia just a group name for all quarks in a family.

That makes no sense. A proton is well-defined. You simply can't do this and be wishy-washy about what it is. In physics, practically very name and concept has clear, underlying physics and mathematical description. You can't simply change things.

Zz.

 

[Epaminondas]

That makes no sense. A proton is well-defined. You simply can't do this and be wishy-washy about what it is. In physics, practically very name and concept has clear, underlying physics and mathematical description. You can't simply change things.

Zz.

ok, I agree on that. I will reformulate my question:

As Bill_K said, "First family is composed of electron (-1) plus up three up-quarks (3*(2/3) = 2) plus three down-quarks (3*(-1/3) = -1), which adds up to zero."

Does it mean that all particles from the first family are matter particles? Is there any physically grounded definition of matter and antimatter, which is not based on more frequent observation of protons rather than antiprotons (or electrons rather than positrons, etc.) in the universe?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Do you know how Feinman explained pair production in QED? He was considering the path of the space-like particle, that moves (a) forward in time, then (b) backward in time, and again (c) forward in time. It looks like there is a single particle at the beginning, then we see an "old" particle together with "particle-antiparticle" pair, then antiparticle annihilates with old particle, and at the end we have only a "new particle" from the pair.Exactly: two quarks and one antiquark! As for unstable particles, it is something that can easily be explained: they are particles that are temporarily accelerated above speed of light in the field of proton.

It's spelled Feynman, and this view has been known to be incorrect since 1964.

As for unstable particles, it is something that can easily be explained: they are particles that are temporarily accelerated above speed of light in the field of proton.

I don't know if this even means anything, but it is certainly not correct.

 

[Epaminondas]

It's spelled Feynman

Sorry for incorrect spelling of Feynman's name, its because all the books of Feynman I've read were in Russian.

this view has been known to be incorrect since 1964.

Can you explain why or give any reference to other sources? I would appreciate this.

 

[ZapperZ]

ok, I agree on that. I will reformulate my question:

As Bill_K said, "First family is composed of electron (-1) plus up three up-quarks (3*(2/3) = 2) plus three down-quarks (3*(-1/3) = -1), which adds up to zero."

Does it mean that all particles from the first family are matter particles? Is there any physically grounded definition of matter and antimatter, which is not based on more frequent observation of protons rather than antiprotons (or electrons rather than positrons, etc.) in the universe?

I have no idea what you just said here. Maybe you should start from the very basic, laymen intro go particle physics. So why don't you go look at the Particle Adventure website and play around there.

http://www.particleadventure.org/

Learn the basics first before you tackle such issues as "matter or anti-matter".

Zz.

 

[Epaminondas]

I have no idea what you just said here. Maybe you should start from the very basic, laymen intro go particle physics. So why don't you go look at the Particle Adventure website and play around there.

http://www.particleadventure.org/

Learn the basics first before you tackle such issues as "matter or anti-matter".

Zz.

Thanks for your kind advice. I'm only trying to be unbiased, open-minded and non-dogmatic. Please do not hesitate to delete this post.

 

[Drakkith]

Thanks for your kind advice. I'm only trying to be unbiased, open-minded and non-dogmatic. Please do not hesitate to delete this post.

Please understand that posts on PF are about mainstream science, not about what MIGHT be. We use the definitions and rules that science has given us and are accepted by the vast majority of people. We CANNOT simply start changing what things are called and what they mean whenever we want, otherwise what's the point of agreeing on a definition in the first place?

 

[Epaminondas]

Please understand that posts on PF are about mainstream science, not about what MIGHT be. We use the definitions and rules that science has given us and are accepted by the vast majority of people. We CANNOT simply start changing what things are called and what they mean whenever we want, otherwise what's the point of agreeing on a definition in the first place?

Of course. The Sun is revolving around the Earth.

 

[Drakkith]

Of course. The Sun is revolving around the Earth.

 

[Epaminondas]

Please understand that posts on PF are about mainstream science, not about what MIGHT be. We use the definitions and rules that science has given us and are accepted by the vast majority of people. We CANNOT simply start changing what things are called and what they mean whenever we want, otherwise what's the point of agreeing on a definition in the first place?

Drakkith, I guess you are right. I've read the forum rules carefully, and see that there is a special section for the non-mainstream physics discussions. I find it very interesting. Thank you!

 

[Vanadium 50]

Which brings this thread to a close.