B What kind of energy is needed to create particles such as quarks and electrons?

[davLev]

Quarks and electrons have clear electric polarity.

So, can we assume that an electric source as electromagnetic is needed to create those kinds of particles?

 

[PeroK]

Quarks and electrons have clear electric polarity.

So, can we assume that an electric source as electromagnetic is needed to create those kinds of particles?

No. An electron-positron pair can be produced from an electrically neutral source. See, for example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

 

[pahenning]

The proper word is not "polarity", but "charge". Any such charge, whether it is the "electric" charge or the color charge associated with quarks and gluons, is the indication for a symmetry of the universe. This principle was discovered by the famous female German physicist Emmy Noether. From this also follows, that everything may be "created" as long as the underlying symmetry is not touched. However, and this is an interesting aspect still under research: Are these symmetries exact or just approximately valid?

An example follow-up question is, whether the universe (or, the "world") is mirror symmetric. And if not, what is the "charge" associated with this symmetry (or rather, its breaking).

pah

 

[davLev]

The proper word is not "polarity", but "charge".

Thanks

No. An electron-positron pair can be produced from an electrically neutral source. See, for example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

In this article they do not specify the type of the energy that is needed to create the particles pair

However, in the following article it is stated:
https://www.britannica.com/science/radiation/Pair-production
"Pair production is a process in which a gamma ray of sufficient energy is converted into an electron and a positron."

So, we need a gamma ray energy.
However, what is gamma ray energy?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/what-is-energy/forms-of-energy.php
Radiant energy includes visible light, x-rays, gamma rays, and radio waves. Light is one type of radiant energy. Sunshine is radiant energy, which provides the fuel and warmth that make life on earth possible.

What is Radiant energy?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/what-is-energy/forms-of-energy.php
Radiant energy is electromagnetic energy that travels in transverse waves.

We can also ask what is electron?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

The electron (e− or β−) is a subatomic particle with a negative one elementary electric charge

Since an electron has charge, it has a surrounding electric field; if that electron is moving relative to an observer, the observer will observe it to generate a magnetic field. Electromagnetic fields produced from other sources will affect the motion of an electron according to the Lorentz force law.

Therefore, as electron has a surrounding electric field and is effected by Electromagnetic fields then only electromagnetic energy can create electron/positron pair.

In the following article they prove that magnetic field around charged black hole can create pair production for both charged and neutral particles.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269323003404

We have shown that an external magnetic field around an extremal charged black hole can amplify the Schwinger effect in the vicinity of its horizon. This result is in line with our expectation, where the rate of particle production should increase as the magnetic field gets stronger [3]. Interestingly, for the case of magnetized black holes, the pair production can occur for both charged and neutral particles. Previously, it was reported that the pair production near Reissner-Nordstrom black hole [4] can exist only for the charged particles.

So, do you agree that Only Radiant energy / electromagnetic energy (which could be in a form of gamma rays) could create the pair production.

 

[Hill]

do you agree that Only Radiant energy / electromagnetic energy (which could be in a form of gamma rays) could create the pair production.

I disagree with "Only". Here is an example of pair production that does not involve electromagnetic energy:

 

[pahenning]

I strongly disagree with the statement that "only radiant energy" can produce charged particle pairs (as long as the net charge is zero (charge conservation)). In fact, any kind of primary energy can produce such pairs, as long as the conservation laws are obeyed and a part of this energy goes into a field that couples to the charged particles. In principle, electron positron pairs can be generated when you clap your hands strongly enough (which I would not recommend). Look at Hawking radiation, for example.

 

[davLev]

I disagree with "Only". Here is an example of pair production that does not involve electromagnetic energy:
View attachment 341108

Dear Hill
That image is about: "Z-boson production via weak-boson fusion"
https://cerncourier.com/a/first-observation-of-z-boson-production-via-weak-boson-fusion/
We discuss about electron creation from energy during pair production and not from any sort of q.

Therefore, this image is not relevant to our discussion.

In principle, electron positron pairs can be generated when you clap your hands strongly enough (which I would not recommend).

Can you please prove that understanding?

Look at Hawking radiation, for example.

Don't you agree that the word "radiation" by itself should be considered as some form of Radiant energy?


So what does it mean "Hawking radiation"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Black hole evaporation
When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E = mc2).

Hence, the idea is that for any escaped particle, the black hole loses some of its mass/particales.
Therefore, we can consider that process as one new particle outside the BH for one less similar particle mass from the BH.
Hence, if we get one electron outside the BH, then a similar electron mass/energy must be deducted from the BH.


But that process doesn't prove that you get an electron from any sort of none Radiant energy.

If you still think that None Radiant energy can be converted into real electron, then please show it.


Just to remind you:

Radiant energy is electromagnetic energy that travels in transverse waves. Radiant energy includes visible light, x-rays, gamma rays, and radio waves. Light is one type of radiant energy. Sunshine is radiant energy, which provides the fuel and warmth that make life on earth possible.

 

[PeroK]

If you still think that None Radiant energy can be converted into real electron, then please show it.

You weren't paying attention in your chemistry class.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay

Also, a free neutron is unstable and decays into a proton, electron and anti neutrino.

 

[pahenning]

Sorry to state this bluntly: your concept of "radiant energy" is pure and unphysical nonsense. You seem to have in mind a kind of classical solution of the electromagnetic field equations (aka Maxwell equations).

The word "radiation" in Hawking radiation is referring to the escaping particles, traditionally called "Beta radiation" - NOT to the cause of the effect. Cause of the effect is the strong gravitational field, equivalent to the mass of the black hole. Which is therefore slowly evaporating into "Beta radiation", e.g. electrons and positrons.

You wrote: "We discuss about electron creation from energy during pair production and not from any sort of q. Therefore, this image is not relevant to our discussion."

First of all, we are not discussing - you have claimed something, and several people have explained that your claim is wrong.

Secondly, the electron-positron pair in the image (aka Feynman diagram) is indeed generated by energy in the form of a boson from the weak interaction. Therefore the image is very relevant to your claim and disproves it another time. You may of course try to solve the field equations of the weak interaction classically and then will find that there are three kinds of "radiation": Z, W+ and W- "radiation".

 

[renormalize]

In this article they do not specify the type of the energy that is needed to create the particles pair

However, in the following article it is stated:
https://www.britannica.com/science/radiation/Pair-production
"Pair production is a process in which a gamma ray of sufficient energy is converted into an electron and a positron."

So, we need a gamma ray energy.

You need something more comprehensive than an encyclopedia reference. Your last statement is wrong. For example, pair-production also occurs when energetic muons collide with nuclei. From the introduction to https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9807311.pdf:
"The production of $e^+e^−$ pairs in collisions of high energy muons with nuclei and atoms is important for a number of problems. In particular, this process is dominant for energy losses of muons passing through matter. A precise knowledge of these losses is necessary for the construction of detectors and $\mu^+\mu^−$ colliders and an estimation of shielding at high energy colliders."
No gamma ray energy needed!

 

[Hill]

Dear Hill
That image is about: "Z-boson production via weak-boson fusion"
https://cerncourier.com/a/first-observation-of-z-boson-production-via-weak-boson-fusion/
We discuss about electron creation from energy during pair production and not from any sort of q.

Therefore, this image is not relevant to our discussion.

The "q" in the image stays for "quark". In this example, electron-positron pair is created from the energy of quarks and not from any electromagnetic energy.
Therefore, it is relevant to this discussion.

 

[davLev]

The "q" in the image stays for "quark". In this example, electron-positron pair is created from the energy of quarks and not from any electromagnetic energy.
Therefore, it is relevant to this discussion.

Sorry if my question was not clear enough.

My intention was to ask:
What kind of energy is needed to create electron out of nothing (Just from a pure source of energy)?
Hence, it isn't about any sort of transformation from existing particle/mass to electron.

Not from Atom/quark/BH mass (or any sort of collision) to electron, but from pure energy to electron.
Based on my understanding, the only valid process for that activity is pair production.
I have found that Gamma ray is needed to accomplish this process.
In this process we get two real particles as positron and electron.
https://www.britannica.com/science/radiation/Pair-production
"Pair production is a process in which a gamma ray of sufficient energy is converted into an electron and a positron."
However, Gamma ray represents Radiant energy which is electromagnetic energy that travels in transverse waves.

If pair production could take place without Radiant energy or if electron could be created in other process from pure energy, then please let me know.

 

[renormalize]

If pair production could take place without Radiant energy or if electron could be created in other process from pure energy, then please let me know.

Did you even read my post #10? Pair-production is possible by simply making two massive particles collide (e.g., a muon and a nucleus). No radiant energy is involved! Also, please define what you mean by "other process from pure energy".

 

[PeroK]

Sorry if my question was not clear enough.

If pair production could take place without Radiant energy or if electron could be created in other process from pure energy, then please let me know.

You're starting to sound like a bot!

 

[weirdoguy]

pure energy

There is no such thing as "pure energy", just like there is no e.g. "pure velocity".

 

[Vanadium 50]

There is no such thing as "pure energy"

Indeed, and the whole question of "what kind of energy" also seems out of place. Since energy is energy and one kind can be transformed to another kind, it's not even clear to me what an answer would look like.

 

[topsquark]

@davLev : To echo pahenning, you seem to be positing that because electrons have charge that they must be created by "radiant energy" (your term). By this I presume you mean by EM waves. But you are forgetting that quarks also have color charge, so by your argument they would have to be created by some kind of "radiant-strong energy." But clearly quark/anti-quark pairs can be produced simply by a photon interaction so no strong force "energy" needs to be present.

Energy is carried (transported) by particles: photons are not energy, they are photons. W bosons, pions, electrons, and any other particle you can come up with all carry energy. All these particles at least have the potential to create electrons and quarks in different interactions. Indeed, Hill in post #5 showed how to create an electron/positron pair by an interaction involving a Z, a neutral particle which is not EM radiation.

In short, any particle/antiparticle pair can be created using only EM radiation, ie. photons. There are other various ways to do this so the process is anything but unique and no specific type of energy (whatever that phrase is supposed to mean) is required.

I am also getting the idea that this question is only preparatory to another concept or question employing this idea. Perhaps something encompassing the Hawking radiation you mentioned above. Bearing in mind that this is not the place to discuss personal theories, would you like to share where your ideas are going? Perhaps the question you have posted is not the best posed one and more information will help us answer what you really need to know.

-Dan

 

[Nugatory]

So, do you agree that Only Radiant energy / electromagnetic energy (which could be in a form of gamma rays) could create the pair production.

No, we don’t agree - it’s not true.
You are starting with a misconception here. At the subatomic level there’s no such thing as radiant energy, or any other “types” of energy the way you’re thinking.

There’s just energy, and if we concentrate enough of it in one place (and other requirements such as momentum conservation are satisfied) pair production can happen. A gamma ray photon is a particularly convenient way of packaging the necessary energy and delivering it to a single point so that’s how pair production is often described, but it’s not the only way. A high-energy particle interacting such as @Hill describes in post #5 above is another way - indeed, a gamma photon is just another high-energy particle.

 

[Nugatory]

Don't you agree that the word "radiation" by itself should be considered as some form of Radiant energy?

No, because the word “radiation” is used in multiple ways. There is electromagnetic radiation, carried by electromagnetic waves - this can reasonably be described as “radiant energy”. However, we also use the word “radiation” to refer to various forms of particle emission - for example, alpha, beta, and gamma radiation - and it is unhelpful to think of this as a form of “radiant energy”.

 

[PeterDonis]

What kind of energy is needed to create electron out of nothing (Just from a pure source of energy)?

There is no such thing as "a pure source of energy". Energy is not a thing. To create an electron-positron pair, you need incoming particles that carry enough energy to do so; as has been pointed out, a pair of gamma ray photons are the easiest thing to use. But those photons are not "pure energy". They are photons that carry energy.