Are all atomic particles the same age?

AI Thread Summary
Atomic particles are not all the same age, as they are constantly created and destroyed. The discussion revolves around defining what constitutes "atomic particles," with emphasis on subatomic particles like protons, neutrons, and quarks. The smallest entities produced in particle accelerators are also considered, highlighting the relationship between mass and energy. While everything has an ultimate age, the exact timing of the creation of these particles remains unclear and depends on the definitions used. Ultimately, the conversation underscores the complexity of understanding the origins and ages of fundamental particles.
AtomicJoe
Messages
204
Reaction score
0
As above really
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
no, particles get created and destroyed all the time, but I do have to say I'm not really clear on what you mean by atomic particles. Do you mean only those that make up atoms? If so do you mean, for example protons and neutrons but not their quarks? What exactly DO you mean. I assume you are leaving out photons for some reason.
 
phinds said:
no, particles get created and destroyed all the time, but I do have to say I'm not really clear on what you mean by atomic particles. Do you mean only those that make up atoms? If so do you mean, for example protons and neutrons but not their quarks? What exactly DO you mean. I assume you are leaving out photons for some reason.

I mean what I say, 'the stuff' the smallest stuff we know, I am not sure what that is nowadays but smaller than an atom.

What is the smallest stuff produced in particle accelerators?

But whatever it be, be it energy or matter or matter-energy, if you like, everything must have an ultimate age even if it was once something else.

More basically was all the stuff created at the same time?

Or did it take a while?
 
AtomicJoe said:
I mean what I say, 'the stuff' the smallest stuff we know, I am not sure what that is nowadays but smaller than an atom.

What is the smallest stuff produced in particle accelerators?

But whatever it be, be it energy or matter or matter-energy, if you like, everything must have an ultimate age even if it was once something else.

More basically was all the stuff created at the same time?

Or did it take a while?

This "stuff" you mention requires an explanation of what it is. The smallest physical objects are all subatomic particles such as electrons, quarks, etc. These can all be created from and turned into different forms of energy. Energy itself is not a physical substance, but an abstract quantity. Any change or transfer in energy has accompanying mass with it. Both mass and energy are always conserved.

So, what is this "stuff"? Mass, energy, something else? The only answer I can possibly give is that I don't know. An easy answer would be that everything is 13+ billion years old, but it depends on how we define this "stuff".
 

Thread 'Potential biosignature found in Mars rock'

Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
View full post »

Thread 'Does it make sense to build new radio telescopes?'

TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
View full post »
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'

Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'

This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Does gravity affect aging on different planets?
Replies
7
Views
2K
How Does Space Travel Affect Natural Aging?
Replies
4
Views
2K
B Dark Energy: Are We All Missing The Obvious?
Replies
4
Views
2K
B How Do We Calculate the Number of Atoms in the Universe?
Replies
7
Views
2K
I Could the Universe Be Much Older Than 13.8 Billion Years?
Replies
3
Views
2K
B I wonder about a particle's energy when mass is obtained or lost
Replies
2
Views
3K
I Why on Earth do we not see older stars close to us?
Replies
3
Views
2K
B Why did Rutherford conclude the atom was mostly empty space?
Replies
27
Views
2K
I Can anyone solve this age problem?
Replies
33
Views
2K
B Strange cosmic particles in my detector
Replies
24
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top