What is the Matter with Matter?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter FredJR
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matter
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties that distinguish matter from antimatter, particularly focusing on the physical characteristics of leptons and quarks within the framework of particle physics. Participants explore theoretical aspects, historical context, and the implications of the Standard Model in understanding these distinctions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the specific physical property that categorizes leptons, such as the electron, with quarks like the up and down quarks, rather than their antiparticles.
  • Another participant suggests that the relationship between QCD and electroweak theory implies a connection between leptons and baryons, noting conditions related to charge and generation in the Standard Model.
  • A third participant introduces the idea that the distinction between matter and antimatter is historically contingent, mentioning CP violations as a potential distinguishing factor.
  • There is a clarification that an electron is considered the antiparticle of a positron, but the terminology used to describe these particles can vary.
  • One participant expresses gratitude for the responses received, indicating that their question may not have been clearly articulated, while acknowledging another participant's contribution as helpful.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the distinction between matter and antimatter, with no consensus reached on a definitive property that categorizes them. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific characteristics that lead to this classification.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the relationships between particles and the implications of mass and charge in the context of the Standard Model, highlighting the need for further exploration of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and electroweak interactions.

FredJR
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Physicists often remark about the absence of antimatter in the universe. My question here sounds simple, but the answer has proved elusive to me. Perhaps someone here can shed some light.

The question is: What is the physical property that "matter" has that distinguishes it from "anti-matter"?

The universe around us is made up of what we call "matter" which is essentially a couple of quark types (u and d) and a lepton type (e). So my question can be rephrased as:
"What physical property does the lepton 'e' share with the quarks 'u' and 'd' that gets them all in the same group (matter) and their anti particles classed as anti-matter?"

Particle Physics says we have 24 fermions (spin half particles). Each fermion has an anti-fermion. Each fermion also has its weak isopsin partner (the particle you get if you add or remove a W+/- as appropriate. Eg u->d when you emit a W+ or e->neutrino when you emit a W-. etc.). But that doesn't say which of the fermions is matter and which is anti-matter.

The fermions are split into those that experience the strong force (quarks and anti quarks) and those that don't (leptons and anti-leptons). The grouping of the electron with the up and down quarks into "matter" spans this. But what is the property?

The Standard Model of Electro -Weak interactions says that only left handed fermions and right handed anti-fermions experience the weak force. I've heard this used as an argument to group left handed electrons and left handed up and down quarks etc. However theory applies to zero mass particles. I can accept that this can be used in the lepton regime where the neutrinos are effectively massless so even though the charged leptons are massive there is one component -the neutrino- which is massless. However in the quark regime all the fermions have mass.

So can anyone explain to me what is the property that the electron and its associated leptons have that gets them grouped with the 'up' quark rather than the anti-up quark? Other than its statistically large representation within the observed universe, which is not a property of the particle itself.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So can anyone explain to me what is the property that the electron and its associated leptons have that gets them grouped with the 'up' quark rather than the anti-up quark?
It's because, contrary to appearances, QCD and electroweak theory are not completely independent of one another. This requires the particles to be related. A world with leptons without baryons could not exist. The standard model is renormalizable only thanks to anomaly cancellation. Fermions come in three generations, and for each generation certain conditions must be satisfied. One is that the sum of the charges in each generation must be zero. (A quark counts as three particles, due to the three colors.)

0 = 3(2/3) + 3(-1/3) + (0) + (-1)

The second condition is quadratic:

0 = 3(2/3)2 - 3(-1/3)2 + (0)2 - (-1)2

Thus the charged lepton that goes with the up and down quarks must be negatively charged.
 
A particle is an antiparticle if it annihilates with another particle.

The distinction of calling one kind matter and the other antimatter is a historical accident.
A distinction has been found in terms of CP violations... it's just not normally how we tell them apart.

Strictly speaking it is accurate to say that an electron is the antiparticle of a positron.

I don't think many people outside science fiction refer to a positron as "antimatter" though we may say that it is an anti-electron... I can't think of a reason you cannot call an electron an anti-positron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle
 
Thanks Simon Bridge for your answer. I don't think you quite got the bit I was stuchk at, maybe my question wasn't well worded. However Bill_K managed to work out what I was looking for and provide and answer. I'll read up on my QCD.

Thanks to both of you for your answers.

Regards
 
Yeah - I was fishing ;)
Glad Bill_K could help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
9K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K