Fermions & Bosons: Can They Be Converted to Energy?

[Norrin Radd]

Since everything is energy, can fermions and bosons be (theoretically) converted to energy too?

 

[jedishrfu]

Since everything is energy, can fermions and bosons be (theoretically) converted to energy too?

Welcome to PF!

The notion of everything is energy is wrong and is the wrong way to look at things...

Fermions and Bosons are particles that behave in certain ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermions

vs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosons

Electrons are the most notable fermions and photons are the most notable bosons.

Given that what is your question?

 

[mfb]

To extend jedishfu's answer:

converted to energy

Particles have energy - their energy is one of their properties, energy is not an object that could get created.

As a comparison, an apple has a color - and you cannot "convert an apple to color".

 

[Norrin Radd]

Why can't everything be "traced" back to energy when everything was caused by Big Bang?
Isn't Big Bang like a energy-soup eruption?

 

[jedishrfu]

Why can't everything be "traced" back to energy when everything was caused by Big Bang?
Isn't Big Bang like a energy-soup eruption?

You have to think of the big bang as particles in very high energy states in a very small space that suddenly expands not that particles are switching from matter to energy and back again. The particles may be switching energy states but they aren't switching to energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

Look at the square well problem of quantum mechanics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_well

The particles are behaving like waves and each particle has a specific wavelength and frequency which determines the amount of energy it has in the square well.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Even the spacetime originated through Big-Bang, how does that work?

 

[phinds]

Even the spacetime originated through Big-Bang, how does that work?

Figure that one out for sure and I guarantee you a Nobel Prize. Possibly several

The "Big Bang" really has two meanings. First the Big Bang Singularity, which may or may not have created everything and which we do not understand. Second, everything from 10E-43 seconds AFTER the singularity. That's really the "Big Bang Theory" and is quite well understood, with some holes still remaining.

 

[jedishrfu]

Even the spacetime originated through Big-Bang, how does that work?

We won't have a complete understanding of this until we have a theory of quantum gravity and even then it may still require something else so I guess you'll have to wait a bit while the physicists catch up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

and Steven Hawking talks about it here:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

 

[Norrin Radd]

So Space, Time, Mass, Energy and The Fundamental Forces are separate fundamental entities... These are the most fundamental things, right?

 

[ChrisVer]

you can;t take out 5 words and call them the fundamental entities, because we don't know what is actually fundamental. Maybe the fundamental forces are a remain of space compactification, maybe they are not.

 

[phinds]

So Space, Time, Mass, Energy and The Fundamental Forces are separate fundamental entities... These are the most fundamental things, right?

Well, those and pizza.

 

[Norrin Radd]

you can;t take out 5 words and call them the fundamental entities, because we don't know what is actually fundamental. Maybe the fundamental forces are a remain of space compactification, maybe they are not.

But the fundamental forces function differently, even though they were once unified...Also since the exchange particles have been discovered...I don't think that can be the case.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Well, those and pizza.

Affirmative.

 

[phinds]

you can;t take out 5 words and call them the fundamental entities, because we don't know what is actually fundamental. Maybe the fundamental forces are a remain of space compactification, maybe they are not.

Well, yeah, but by the definitions of today's physics as we understand things, I think he has it right (except for leaving out pizza).

 

[ChrisVer]

First of all, please define to me what you mean by fundamental then...
Standard Model (for me) is not fundamental because I don't see it as a complete theory - although totally experimentally verified it leaves many windows opened. So how am I supposed to call it fundamental? there is more to be found within...
In addition, if the fundamental forces were once unified, or were once a part of extra dimensions, this would mean that the theory can be more fundamental... The idea is based simply to the fact that in the past, atoms were considered fundamental... then electrons and nucleons... and so on...
Eg if the resulting fundamental forces come from the spacetime compactification, then for me, fundamental would be the spacetime geometry (not the forces)

 

[phinds]

Yes, my statement does take the Standard Model to show the fundamental particles and I do take the fundamental forces to be fundamental.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Yes, my statement does take the Standard Model to show the fundamental particles and I do take the fundamental forces to be fundamental.

Is there any other entity that should be added to the list? Or is the list complete?

 

[phinds]

Is there any other entity that should be added to the list? Or is the list complete?

Not that I can think of offhand but I would change "space" and "time" to space-time. Thinking of them as separate is classical physics and can cause problems in real world cosmology. It's like thinking of an electron as a particle AND a wave. Actually, it's not either one. It's a quantum object.

 

[Norrin Radd]

First of all, please define to me what you mean by fundamental then...
Standard Model (for me) is not fundamental because I don't see it as a complete theory - although totally experimentally verified it leaves many windows opened. So how am I supposed to call it fundamental? there is more to be found within...
In addition, if the fundamental forces were once unified, or were once a part of extra dimensions, this would mean that the theory can be more fundamental... The idea is based simply to the fact that in the past, atoms were considered fundamental... then electrons and nucleons... and so on...
Eg if the resulting fundamental forces come from the spacetime compactification, then for me, fundamental would be the spacetime geometry (not the forces)

By "extra dimensions", you're talking about the curled dimensions, right?
Anyway, the standard model might leave some windows open...but the example you're talking about is definitely not one of them...the exchange particles have been discovered.

 

[ChrisVer]

Yes that's what I meant by extra dimensions.
What if they have been discovered? The atom has been discovered as well, it's not fundamental. I'm not saying that the particles are composite, but I'm saying there is a deeper meaning to their existence. If the extra dimensions exist, as I noted above, and their compactification gives you the appropriate fields, then the fields are a result of the curled up manifold's geometry... thus they stop being fundamental for me, but they are a result of the spacetime structure.
I am not saying that extra dimension theories are correct...
My problem was with your question about that list of 5 things being the most fundamental things. No they, in fact, are not.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Yes that's what I meant by extra dimensions.
What if they have been discovered? The atom has been discovered as well, it's not fundamental. I'm not saying that the particles are composite, but I'm saying there is a deeper meaning to their existence. If the extra dimensions exist, as I noted above, and their compactification gives you the appropriate fields, then the fields are a result of the curled up manifold's geometry... thus they stop being fundamental for me, but they are a result of the spacetime structure.
I am not saying that extra dimension theories are correct...
My problem was with your question about that list of 5 things being the most fundamental things. No they, in fact, are not.

So you're suggesting that gauge bosons function like the Higgs Boson...interacting with a field, right?

 

[mfb]

Why energy, why not momentum?
Or, better, unify both.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Not that I can think of offhand but I would change "space" and "time" to space-time. Thinking of them as separate is classical physics and can cause problems in real world cosmology. It's like thinking of an electron as a particle AND a wave. Actually, it's not either one. It's a quantum object.

Why energy, why not momentum?
Or, better, unify both.

Spacetime, Mass, Energy-Momentum Tensor, The Fundamental Forces.
Is there anything else that should be added?

 

[Norrin Radd]

Welcome to PF!

The notion of everything is energy is wrong and is the wrong way to look at things...

Fermions and Bosons are particles that behave in certain ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermions

vs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosons

Electrons are the most notable fermions and photons are the most notable bosons.

Given that what is your question?

To extend jedishfu's answer:
Particles have energy - their energy is one of their properties, energy is not an object that could get created.

As a comparison, an apple has a color - and you cannot "convert an apple to color".

"In particle physics, force carriers are particles that give rise to forces between other particles. These particles are bundles of energy (quanta) of a particular kind of field." -Wikipedia
What about this then?

 

[phinds]

Come to think of it, I think I would say matter, not mass. I think mass is an emergent property of matter, caused by the Higgs field.

 

[ChrisVer]

So you're suggesting that gauge bosons function like the Higgs Boson...interacting with a field, right?

ehmmm... what do you mean by suggesting? I don't think I said something like that, but yes... that's a fact... gauge bosons interact with fields.

 

[Norrin Radd]

ehmmm... what do you mean by suggesting? I don't think I said something like that, but yes... that's a fact... gauge bosons interact with fields.

Is that how it works? As far as I know, gauge bosons are the quantum of their respective fields...while Higgs Boson interacts with the Higgs field to "impart" mass to particles...gauge bosons don't "interact" per se; although they form their respective fields.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also since I've failed to understand what you're trying to convey...please elucidate.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Why energy, why not momentum?
Or, better, unify both.

Is momentum fundamental?
Momentum is the product of mass and velocity, right?

Velocity is basically speed with respect to direction...speed is kinetic energy; thus energy...direction is denoted in terms of space.

And as phinds said:

Come to think of it, I think I would say matter, not mass. I think mass is an emergent property of matter, caused by the Higgs field.

I don't think momentum is fundamental.
Momentum is a relation between some of the fundamental entities.

Spacetime, Matter, Energy, The Fundamental Forces.
Or
Spacetime, Energy and Fundamental Particles.

 

[mfb]

Is momentum fundamental?

That's philosophy.

Momentum is the product of mass and velocity, right?

Only if you neglect special relativity. And there is a similar relation between mass, velocity and energy. So what?

"In particle physics, force carriers are particles that give rise to forces between other particles. These particles are bundles of energy (quanta) of a particular kind of field." -Wikipedia
What about this then?

Quanta of energy of a particular kind of field are just a different way to say "particles".

gauge bosons don't "interact" per se

Sure they do.

This is getting more and more philosophical, and it is pointless to discuss philosophy I think.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Only if you neglect special relativity. And there is a similar relation between mass, velocity and energy. So what?

Oh, okay...Thank you.

Quanta of energy of a particular kind of field are just a different way to say "particles".

Random (and probably stupid) question...
Is energy particulate too?

Sure they do.

This is getting more and more philosophical, and it is pointless to discuss philosophy I think.

I'm not sure if you've got what I'm saying...
Hypothetical situation: If there's no higgs field, would the higgs boson serve any purpose?

So, are gauge bosons dependent on any such field too?