What Role Did Electrons and Positrons Play in the Early Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter narrator
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass
AI Thread Summary
Electrons and positrons were indeed significant components of the early universe, particularly during the lepton epoch, where high temperatures allowed for the spontaneous creation of electron-positron pairs. These particles have mass, and according to the principle of E=mc², mass can be generated from energy. The universe maintains a zero total charge, which is conserved, allowing for a balance among electrons, protons, and neutrons. Photons, while massless, still exert gravitational influence due to their energy. The discussion highlights the complex processes of particle creation and annihilation that shaped the early universe's composition.
narrator
Messages
241
Reaction score
17
I've been reading about the early universe (The book: The First Three Minutes) and it prompted a few questions:

Is it right that a dominant part of the early universe was electrons and positrons?

Given that electrons and positrons were a big part of the early universe, was there some early process whereby they ended up becoming masses (or just the positrons did)? I'm trying to understand how the balance in numbers of electrons, protons and neutrons came about.

I find it difficult to get my head around a particle having no mass (photons). Is it that their mass is so insignificantly small, compared to protons and neutrons, that their mass has no measurable effect? Or is it that they actually do have zero mass?

Edited to correct something I misread. Apologies.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
narrator said:
Is it right that a dominant part of the early universe was electrons and positrons?
I think that's right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_epoch

narrator said:
Given that electrons and positrons were a big part of the early universe, was there some early process whereby they ended up becoming masses (or just the positrons did)?
Electrons and positrons do have mass. Particles with mass can be created out of pure energy: E=mc2.

narrator said:
I'm trying to understand how the balance in numbers of electrons, protons and neutrons came about.
The universe has zero total charge, and charge is conserved. One example of a mixture of particles that has zero total charge is a mixture of electrons, positrons, neutrinos, and photons (as in the lepton epoch). Another example is a mixture of protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos, and photons (the part of today's mix that we understand well). Mix #1 existed at early times because the temperature was high enough to produce electron-positron pairs spontaneously.

narrator said:
I find it difficult to get my head around a particle having no mass (photons). Is it that their mass is so insignificantly small, compared to protons and neutrons, that their mass has no measurable effect? Or is it that they actually do have zero mass?
Empirically, we can set a very low limit on their mass:
R.S. Lakes, "Experimental limits on the photon mass and cosmic magnetic vector potential", Physical Review Letters 80 (1998) 1826, http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~lakes/mu.html
Note that massless particles still gravitate, basically because their energy is equivalent to some mass by E=mc2. There was an era when gravity in our universe was mainly due to photons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation-Dominated_Era

-Ben
 
Thanks Ben, thanks for your comprehensive reply. :)

bcrowell said:
The universe has zero total charge, and charge is conserved.

Do we know this for certain? My memory of chemistry is that unstable chemicals change often because of movement of uneven charges. (I recall some man made chemicals were difficult to maintain for this reason.) Could it be that the BB had some provocation from such an imbalance?

bcrowell said:
Particles with mass can be created out of pure energy: E=mc2.

I've often wondered about this process. Is it quantum machinery that does this? (Trying to form a picture in my mind of how it might happen - energy pushing quantum particles together or some such.)

bcrowell said:

I noted from the link in that article to Leptons, this quote: "Charged leptons can combine with other particles to form various composite particles such as atoms and positronium."

Which made me wonder. If Leptons were the dominant species, then there were fewer "other particles" at that time. Which means more "other particles" must have been created by the process you mentioned, mass out of energy. Is that right? Was that the annihilation process?
 
narrator said:
Do we know this for certain? My memory of chemistry is that unstable chemicals change often because of movement of uneven charges. (I recall some man made chemicals were difficult to maintain for this reason.) Could it be that the BB had some provocation from such an imbalance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_conservation

narrator said:
I've often wondered about this process. Is it quantum machinery that does this?
No, it's a purely classical (i.e., non-quantum mechanical) fact.

narrator said:
Which made me wonder. If Leptons were the dominant species, then there were fewer "other particles" at that time. Which means more "other particles" must have been created by the process you mentioned, mass out of energy. Is that right? Was that the annihilation process?
The main change has not been that leptons and antileptons have been annihilated with each other.

The questions you're asking make me think you could get a lot out of reading The First Three Minutes.

-Ben
 
bcrowell said:
The questions you're asking make me think you could get a lot out of reading The First Three Minutes.

hehe.. I'm reading it, a dozen pages at a time.. but you're right
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top