Protons: matter or anti-matter?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the classification of protons and anti-protons as matter or antimatter, exploring the implications of such classifications on our understanding of the universe. Participants examine the definitions of matter and antimatter, the historical context of these terms, and the potential for alternative models that challenge conventional views.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the conventional classification of protons as matter and positrons as antimatter, suggesting that protons could be viewed as antimatter under certain assumptions.
  • One participant proposes that the definitions of matter and antimatter are based on observational prevalence, arguing that if the universe were composed of anti-protons and positrons, then protons and electrons would be considered antimatter.
  • Another participant discusses the Standard Model's requirement for the total charge of particles in each family to be zero, raising questions about whether this implies that all particles in a family are matter particles.
  • A hypothesis is presented suggesting that protons are matter and electrons are antimatter, positing that baryons and anti-baryons were balanced after the Big Bang, with a slight difference in decay mechanisms leading to the survival of baryons.
  • One participant introduces a model where electrons are not point-like particles but rather spatial distributions of charge, proposing that "abnormal" solutions in their model correspond to protons, which could help explain phenomena such as quark confinement and the matter-antimatter imbalance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the classification of protons and electrons as matter or antimatter, with no consensus reached. Some support traditional definitions, while others propose alternative interpretations and models.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of current definitions of matter and antimatter, which may depend on observational biases and the historical context of particle discovery. The implications of alternative models and hypotheses remain unresolved.

  • #31
Drakkith said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Epaminondas said:
Of course. The Sun is revolving around the Earth.

:cry:
 
  • #33
Drakkith said:
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!
 
  • #34
Which brings this thread to a close.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K