Evolution of Elementary particles?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Standard Model of particle physics, specifically regarding the ratios of fermions as the universe expands. It clarifies that the generations of fermions—Generations I, II, and III—do not indicate their creation timeline but rather the energy required for their creation and discovery. The primary fermions, protons, neutrons, and electrons, remain stable, while other fermions decay rapidly into these three or into photons. This highlights the stability of certain particles in the context of cosmic expansion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Standard Model of particle physics
  • Knowledge of fermions and their classifications
  • Familiarity with particle decay processes
  • Basic concepts of cosmic expansion and its implications on particle physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of cosmic expansion on particle stability
  • Explore the properties and classifications of fermions in the Standard Model
  • Study the decay processes of higher-generation fermions
  • Investigate the energy scales associated with the creation of different fermion generations
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of particle physics, and anyone interested in the dynamics of elementary particles and their behavior in an expanding universe.

Aztral
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Hello,

Maybe a strange question here (I'm not 100% current with the standard model), but does the standard model say anything about a change in the ratios of fermions as the universe expands?
(I see Generations I, II & III listed)
 
Space news on Phys.org
The generations don't refer to when they were created, as in a timeframe, but refers to the energy required to create them and when we discovered them. The ratio of fermions only really changes between protons and neutrons and electrons. All other fermions decay rapidly into one of those three or into photons.
 
Hrm..ok. Thank you for answering my question :)
 

Thread 'Estimates — True Size of the Universe?'

I always thought it was odd that we know dark energy expands our universe, and that we know it has been increasing over time, yet no one ever expressed a "true" size of the universe (not "observable" universe, the ENTIRE universe) by just reversing the process of expansion based on our understanding of its rate through history, to the point where everything would've been in an extremely small region. The more I've looked into it recently, I've come to find that it is due to that "inflation"...
View full post »

Similar threads

Undergrad How does the Singularity produce all the diverse matter in the universe?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Graduate Evolution of radio sources mimics a non-expanding universe
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Observations fit poorly with the Standard Model of Cosmology
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Undergrad Can a scalar field model account for the cosmic redshift?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Binnig's fractal evolution applied to multiple universes?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Can gravitational waves gain energy in an expanding FRW spacetime?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
High Energy Books on the Standard Model of elementary particle physics & beyond
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Before Inflation: Elementary Particles Q&A
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
Undergrad 3 questions about a paper on density fluctuations in the Universe
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Some questions about Cosmic Inflation
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K