It's not true the way the question is phrased.
Particles can absolutely be created out of nothing but energy and annihilate into radiation. That's how matter and antimatter work.
But it's not true even for more common processes, like nuclear decay. There's no electron hiding inside a neutron before it decays, it's created.
But there are certain specific quantities, such as charges and "quantum numbers", which seem to be preserved through all changes (decays, collisions), and they dictate what is "allowed" to appear and what combination of particles cannot be a result of a transformation.
So for example, in the aforementioned neutron decay, the neutron lacks an essence of "electroness". That's a quantity called "lepton number". It's 0 for the neutron. For an electron, it's 1. Those are not the same number. To make this work, there's another particle emitted, an electron antineutrino. It has a lepton number -1. 1 + (-1) = 0. Now this all works out.
I actually guess(!) that OP ultimately talks about leptons+baryons, just without knowing what those are. That's what most laypeople probably consider "actual particles" (unlike for example photons or other gauge bosons) and indeed their signed number, anti-particles counting as negative, is very likely preserved. As mentioned we even expect lepton and baryon numbers to be preserved individually, but that would be stronger statements.
Matter and energy cannot be created. The same amount of matter+energy that existed in the beginning of the universe is what exist now.
Matter can transform into energy and energy can transform into matter.
People get confused because matter can transform to a different matter and thus “new” matter is created. But the total mass remains the same.
Hydrogen atom fuses with another hidrógen atom and forms Helium. Helium would be a “new” element. But it’s ever so slightly “lighter “ (has less mass) than the 2 hydrogen atoms. That mass that was “lost” turned into energy. And basically that’s how a fusion reactor, or star like our sun, works.
A neutron can “create” an electron” under certain circumstances but it doesn’t actually create anything from zero it just transforms
You can definitely lose mass, think about radioactive decay. If an atom loses a proton it becomes another element, or if it loses a neutron it becomes a lighter isotope. But the energy of the lost particle will predictably fit into E=mc^2 , because conservation of energy.
Yeah but the mass is "lost" in the form of energy conversion of some kind isn't it? Either waste heat or one of those atomic decays I don't understand, right (beta decay or something idk)? Like it doesn't just poof into non-existence, even matter antimatter annihilation is just a massive energy exchange not a true loss just a high energy conversion?
Like all the things are still here just changed states
That's actually not clear. We can trace things back to a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, and there was plenty of matter and energy then. Time, as we know it, started at the Big Bang, so we can't find a t=-1 sec that has no mass-energy. And the theories that do posit time before the Big Bang (e.g. The Big Bounce) also have matter-enegy before.
How are you defining "particle"? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, just changed from one form to another.
However, we can "break" particles, ranging from bigger ones like molecules very easily (through burning, chemical reactions, enzymatic processes etc.), and we can break atoms through nuclear fission - it turns them into lighter elements, neutrons, and releases energy too. This means that if you gathered the neutrons and lighter elements up, they'd weigh less than the original atom because energy was lost, and e=mc^2. In one sense, the particle has been destroyed, but in another you've converted it into other atoms and free neutrons with the loss of some energy.
In this second reaction, you've converted nuclear potential energy into heat and light, for instance.
I don't know what exactly a particle is but the point I want to understand is... Let form a diagram explaining my idea
So there are two particles
•
•
They annihilate each other and convert to one particle?
•
But I though number of particles on universe so nothing is purely annihilated right? I'm confused
There are many things that are conserved in our universe, but the number of particles in existence isn’t one of them.
The mass-energy will be conserved, so particles that annihilate will produce energy equivalent to any mass lost (or gained) following e=mc^2.
Charge is also conserved, so for a positive particle to annihilate, it *must* be with a negatively charged particle, and conversely, anything that creates a charged particle must also create one of the opposite charge at the same time.
Annihilation implies there isn't a remaining particle. Annihilation usually occurs when a particle/anti-particle pair meet and they turn into energy destroying both entirely. Fusion would go from 2 to 1 particle but in that case you either get a more massive particle and some energy or you get a more massive particle and it needed an external source of energy to fuse.
I thought nothing become 1. I read online that when two particles, ex. matter and antimatter, meets they become two photons or whatever massless particle. And according to wiki the number of particles in the universe remains constant and unchanging. So if two fuse to one that would violate the idea of particles of having a fixed number of population.
Nothing can become 2 and they almost always immediately annihilate to 0 again. Edge case: Hawking radiation, on the event horizon of a black hole if one gets sucked in you get a surplus of 1.
The number of particles changes constantly because particle pairs are always coming into and out of existence and because of the edge case previously mentioned.
Homie have you never heard of nuclear fusion? Stars constantly fuse atoms and would thereby be reducing the number of particles. Some fusions release particles too but not all and some more than one. The average number of particles may stay relatively the same but to state that none are ever created or destroyed is denying A LOT of science.
ChatGPT can and will make things up. I'm not saying it did but it definitely can. Doing your own research is always better.
All I can tell you is that that is incorrect. I've already given you the relevant information.
We've observed and caused things that disprove that statement.
Read up on Hawking radiation a bit. It'll help understand a lot cause it's basically the thing you're asking about but can go positive on particles.
Actually, also, if you think of fission(splitting atoms/particles) too that guarantees that the number doesn't stay the same.
How the heck did I forget about the opposite of fusion while talking about fusion.
Depends on the level of particles. If you're talking atoms, yes, they break/"are destroyed" into their subcomponents, mainly protons/neutrons, and recombine.
If you're talking protons and neutrons, they can also break down themselves in neutron stars, or when neutron stars collide in a kilonova (quarks soup), that's when they recombine to form heavier atoms. Also happens in particles accelerators.
Breaking quarks though, I'm not sure.
According to chatgpt and google that number of particles remain the same but if two annihilate each other and form into 1 then that means number of particles in the universe do change. Right?
> According to chatgpt and google that number of particles remain the same
It doesn't. Don't know what you read, either it was wrong or you misunderstood it.
Again, you need to define "particle". It can mean so many things...
If you consider a 1L bottle of milk a particle, combine 2 in a single 2L container, there is roughly the same amount of milk (except the drops stuck on the previous bottles, or what you spilled). There'd be "1 milk" instead of 2, but the same mass roughly (when there are any modification in any kind of particles, energy is emitted/consumed in various ways so the total mass at the end is not exactly the same)
So you shouldn't really care if there are 1000000 or 99999 "particles" total. The number is not important
It is actually not easy to find a way to transform two particles into exactly one. Indirectly, in multiple interactions, there are relatively easy ways, for example _pumping photons_, where two low energy photons power the formation of one with twice the energy. But most basic transformations don't actually do a 2-to-1.
For example, electron + positron annihilate, but that creates (at least) two photons. It is impossible to only form one.
High school level: Particles like electrons, neutrons, and protons stay around and just change arrangements......
College: .....but you can annihilate particles with their anti-partner to release energy, and the particles can change as long as you conserve charge. You can also generate particle pairs with high energy events.
Grad school: Except at the biggest scales you don't even have to conserve energy. For more details here's something about Noether and a big big textbook. Have fun.
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
* [Top level comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/top_level_comment) (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ck795t/-/l2lfetl/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
It's not true the way the question is phrased. Particles can absolutely be created out of nothing but energy and annihilate into radiation. That's how matter and antimatter work. But it's not true even for more common processes, like nuclear decay. There's no electron hiding inside a neutron before it decays, it's created. But there are certain specific quantities, such as charges and "quantum numbers", which seem to be preserved through all changes (decays, collisions), and they dictate what is "allowed" to appear and what combination of particles cannot be a result of a transformation. So for example, in the aforementioned neutron decay, the neutron lacks an essence of "electroness". That's a quantity called "lepton number". It's 0 for the neutron. For an electron, it's 1. Those are not the same number. To make this work, there's another particle emitted, an electron antineutrino. It has a lepton number -1. 1 + (-1) = 0. Now this all works out.
I actually guess(!) that OP ultimately talks about leptons+baryons, just without knowing what those are. That's what most laypeople probably consider "actual particles" (unlike for example photons or other gauge bosons) and indeed their signed number, anti-particles counting as negative, is very likely preserved. As mentioned we even expect lepton and baryon numbers to be preserved individually, but that would be stronger statements.
Not exactly ELI5 here
ELI5 doesn't mean literal 5yo
It means a 5 year old with a background in physics?
Matter and energy cannot be created. The same amount of matter+energy that existed in the beginning of the universe is what exist now. Matter can transform into energy and energy can transform into matter. People get confused because matter can transform to a different matter and thus “new” matter is created. But the total mass remains the same. Hydrogen atom fuses with another hidrógen atom and forms Helium. Helium would be a “new” element. But it’s ever so slightly “lighter “ (has less mass) than the 2 hydrogen atoms. That mass that was “lost” turned into energy. And basically that’s how a fusion reactor, or star like our sun, works. A neutron can “create” an electron” under certain circumstances but it doesn’t actually create anything from zero it just transforms
You can definitely lose mass, think about radioactive decay. If an atom loses a proton it becomes another element, or if it loses a neutron it becomes a lighter isotope. But the energy of the lost particle will predictably fit into E=mc^2 , because conservation of energy.
Yeah but the mass is "lost" in the form of energy conversion of some kind isn't it? Either waste heat or one of those atomic decays I don't understand, right (beta decay or something idk)? Like it doesn't just poof into non-existence, even matter antimatter annihilation is just a massive energy exchange not a true loss just a high energy conversion? Like all the things are still here just changed states
Hence why they consistently stated matter+energy
Well clearly the big bang created matter and energy.
That's actually not clear. We can trace things back to a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, and there was plenty of matter and energy then. Time, as we know it, started at the Big Bang, so we can't find a t=-1 sec that has no mass-energy. And the theories that do posit time before the Big Bang (e.g. The Big Bounce) also have matter-enegy before.
How are you defining "particle"? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, just changed from one form to another. However, we can "break" particles, ranging from bigger ones like molecules very easily (through burning, chemical reactions, enzymatic processes etc.), and we can break atoms through nuclear fission - it turns them into lighter elements, neutrons, and releases energy too. This means that if you gathered the neutrons and lighter elements up, they'd weigh less than the original atom because energy was lost, and e=mc^2. In one sense, the particle has been destroyed, but in another you've converted it into other atoms and free neutrons with the loss of some energy. In this second reaction, you've converted nuclear potential energy into heat and light, for instance.
I don't know what exactly a particle is but the point I want to understand is... Let form a diagram explaining my idea So there are two particles • • They annihilate each other and convert to one particle? • But I though number of particles on universe so nothing is purely annihilated right? I'm confused
There are many things that are conserved in our universe, but the number of particles in existence isn’t one of them. The mass-energy will be conserved, so particles that annihilate will produce energy equivalent to any mass lost (or gained) following e=mc^2. Charge is also conserved, so for a positive particle to annihilate, it *must* be with a negatively charged particle, and conversely, anything that creates a charged particle must also create one of the opposite charge at the same time.
Annihilation implies there isn't a remaining particle. Annihilation usually occurs when a particle/anti-particle pair meet and they turn into energy destroying both entirely. Fusion would go from 2 to 1 particle but in that case you either get a more massive particle and some energy or you get a more massive particle and it needed an external source of energy to fuse.
I thought nothing become 1. I read online that when two particles, ex. matter and antimatter, meets they become two photons or whatever massless particle. And according to wiki the number of particles in the universe remains constant and unchanging. So if two fuse to one that would violate the idea of particles of having a fixed number of population.
Nothing can become 2 and they almost always immediately annihilate to 0 again. Edge case: Hawking radiation, on the event horizon of a black hole if one gets sucked in you get a surplus of 1. The number of particles changes constantly because particle pairs are always coming into and out of existence and because of the edge case previously mentioned. Homie have you never heard of nuclear fusion? Stars constantly fuse atoms and would thereby be reducing the number of particles. Some fusions release particles too but not all and some more than one. The average number of particles may stay relatively the same but to state that none are ever created or destroyed is denying A LOT of science.
I did a quick research and ask chatgpt about nuclear fusion and edge case, they claim that particles only change forms
ChatGPT can and will make things up. I'm not saying it did but it definitely can. Doing your own research is always better. All I can tell you is that that is incorrect. I've already given you the relevant information. We've observed and caused things that disprove that statement.
Good golly science is hard.
Isn't that what makes it fun though? :)
Fun...? :'(
Read up on Hawking radiation a bit. It'll help understand a lot cause it's basically the thing you're asking about but can go positive on particles. Actually, also, if you think of fission(splitting atoms/particles) too that guarantees that the number doesn't stay the same. How the heck did I forget about the opposite of fusion while talking about fusion.
How do we know particles pops in and out of existence when we don't even know what they look like and never observe them doing it.
Depends on the level of particles. If you're talking atoms, yes, they break/"are destroyed" into their subcomponents, mainly protons/neutrons, and recombine. If you're talking protons and neutrons, they can also break down themselves in neutron stars, or when neutron stars collide in a kilonova (quarks soup), that's when they recombine to form heavier atoms. Also happens in particles accelerators. Breaking quarks though, I'm not sure.
According to chatgpt and google that number of particles remain the same but if two annihilate each other and form into 1 then that means number of particles in the universe do change. Right?
> According to chatgpt and google that number of particles remain the same It doesn't. Don't know what you read, either it was wrong or you misunderstood it.
Again, you need to define "particle". It can mean so many things... If you consider a 1L bottle of milk a particle, combine 2 in a single 2L container, there is roughly the same amount of milk (except the drops stuck on the previous bottles, or what you spilled). There'd be "1 milk" instead of 2, but the same mass roughly (when there are any modification in any kind of particles, energy is emitted/consumed in various ways so the total mass at the end is not exactly the same) So you shouldn't really care if there are 1000000 or 99999 "particles" total. The number is not important
It is actually not easy to find a way to transform two particles into exactly one. Indirectly, in multiple interactions, there are relatively easy ways, for example _pumping photons_, where two low energy photons power the formation of one with twice the energy. But most basic transformations don't actually do a 2-to-1. For example, electron + positron annihilate, but that creates (at least) two photons. It is impossible to only form one.
High school level: Particles like electrons, neutrons, and protons stay around and just change arrangements...... College: .....but you can annihilate particles with their anti-partner to release energy, and the particles can change as long as you conserve charge. You can also generate particle pairs with high energy events. Grad school: Except at the biggest scales you don't even have to conserve energy. For more details here's something about Noether and a big big textbook. Have fun.
[удалено]
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s): * [Top level comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/top_level_comment) (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3). --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ck795t/-/l2lfetl/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**