swansont Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I know 2 fermions are not 1 fermion, are you arguing about some perceived typographical misunderstanding. You have given no indication that this is a typographical misunderstanding. You have, however, shown that you lack understanding of the physics involved. Each fermion results in a gamma ray being emitted, when they are destroyed, a can not make it any clearer than that, even Wikipedia agrees, as I have stated above. That's the wrong correlation, which means you are still not seeing the underlying issue. You cannot convert a single fermion into a boson. (and besides, as I previously noted, sometimes you get more than two photons) Wikipedia agrees with me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron–positron_annihilation Since the article cites conservation of lepton number and angular momentum, it most certainly does not agree with you. The phrasing I would have used from my teaching days would have been RAWR: Right Answer, Wrong Reason, a version of ABA: Answer By Accident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handy andy Posted June 7, 2017 Author Share Posted June 7, 2017 You have given no indication that this is a typographical misunderstanding. You have, however, shown that you lack understanding of the physics involved. That's the wrong correlation, which means you are still not seeing the underlying issue. You cannot convert a single fermion into a boson. (and besides, as I previously noted, sometimes you get more than two photons) Since the article cites conservation of lepton number and angular momentum, it most certainly does not agree with you. The phrasing I would have used from my teaching days would have been RAWR: Right Answer, Wrong Reason, a version of ABA: Answer By Accident I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse, in order to discourage me from asking further questions, it would be easier to ask, or simply not answer the posts, unless you felt like engaging in trolling for amusement. As a teacher if you are trying to explain something you have failed to explain yourself. Electron–positron annihilation occurs when an electron (e−) and a positron (e+, the electron's antiparticle) collide. The result of the collision at low energies is the annihilation of the electron and positron, and the creation of gamma ray photons: The above is non ambiguous, the wiki link goes on further to explain some other additional stuff which I am fully aware off, some of which you mention. Thanks all, for the mostly interesting and sometimes helpful comments. This thread is completely of track and should be locked. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse, in order to discourage me from asking further questions, it would be easier to ask, or simply not answer the posts, unless you felt like engaging in trolling for amusement. As a teacher if you are trying to explain something you have failed to explain yourself. You misunderstand the situation, I fear. You made a claim, it is wrong, and I'm not the only one to tell you this. You did not ask a question, so I am not offering an explanation. The fact that you have tried to defend your claim rather than ask for correction indicates that you are not here to learn, so it's ironic that you chide me for any shortcoming on the teaching front. If you are not willing to learn, then the skill of the teacher is moot. IOW, far from trying to discourage you, I am trying to get you to ask a question, and you are resisting. Your obstinance and misplaced confidence that you know what you're talking about are the problem here. Your misunderstanding is not my fault. Don't blame the messenger. Electron–positron annihilation occurs when an electron (e−) and a positron (e+, the electron's antiparticle) collide. The result of the collision at low energies is the annihilation of the electron and positron, and the creation of gamma ray photons: The above is non ambiguous, the wiki link goes on further to explain some other additional stuff which I am fully aware off, some of which you mention. Your citation of it underscores the fact that you simply do not understand the details of why your claim was wrong (and as I pointed out, the answer to your misconception is included in the explanation). And yet you still defend it, rather than ask why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse, in order to discourage me from asking further questions, it would be easier to ask, or simply not answer the posts, unless you felt like engaging in trolling for amusement. As a teacher if you are trying to explain something you have failed to explain yourself. You seem to be the one who is being slightly obtuse. No one is disagreeing with the fact that electron-positron annihilation occurs. You are the one who is misinterpreting or misrepresenting this to claim that a fermion can be changed into a boson. One reason is that there are several conserved properties. An obvious one is charge: most fermions have charge and photons have none. That is one reason why you need an electron (charge = -1) and an anti-electron (charge +1) to get a pair of photons which have zero charge. Another is mass. Then there is spin and less well known ones such as lepton number: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number All these have to be conserved, which means that you cannot convert a fermion into a boson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handy andy Posted June 8, 2017 Author Share Posted June 8, 2017 You seem to be the one who is being slightly obtuse. No one is disagreeing with the fact that electron-positron annihilation occurs. You are the one who is misinterpreting or misrepresenting this to claim that a fermion can be changed into a boson. One reason is that there are several conserved properties. An obvious one is charge: most fermions have charge and photons have none. That is one reason why you need an electron (charge = -1) and an anti-electron (charge +1) to get a pair of photons which have zero charge. Another is mass. Then there is spin and less well known ones such as lepton number: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number All these have to be conserved, which means that you cannot convert a fermion into a boson. Cosmic Rays combine with atoms in the atmosphere creating new particles, such as muons which decay down to electrons(which I know are leptons) and gamma rays Photon radiation is called gamma rays if produced by a nuclear reaction, subatomic particle decay, or radioactive decay within the nucleus. It is otherwise called x-rays if produced outside the nucleus. The generic term photon is therefore used to describe both subatomic particles include muons which are used as proof for time dilation and decay down to electrons and gamma rays Gamma rays are produced in lightning strikes. Those gamma rays did not exist until the lightning strike happened. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can bosons become fermions and vice versa? The answer is at a minimum, unstable particles can decay into smaller particles and bosons. If heated in a plasma and other particles are formed, again radiation can be given off. Positrons are created in thunderclouds which do collide with electrons and do result in gamma radiation. You misunderstand the situation, I fear. You made a claim, it is wrong, and I'm not the only one to tell you this. You did not ask a question, so I am not offering an explanation. The fact that you have tried to defend your claim rather than ask for correction indicates that you are not here to learn, so it's ironic that you chide me for any shortcoming on the teaching front. If you are not willing to learn, then the skill of the teacher is moot. IOW, far from trying to discourage you, I am trying to get you to ask a question, and you are resisting. Your obstinance and misplaced confidence that you know what you're talking about are the problem here. Your misunderstanding is not my fault. Don't blame the messenger. Your citation of it underscores the fact that you simply do not understand the details of why your claim was wrong (and as I pointed out, the answer to your misconception is included in the explanation). And yet you still defend it, rather than ask why. You were asked to explain your self a number of posts back, you havent -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 You were asked to explain your self a number of posts back, you havent Strange has mentioned conservation laws a number of times. I have pointed you specifically to angular momentum and lepton number conservation laws. Have you investigated these concepts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handy andy Posted June 9, 2017 Author Share Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) Strange has mentioned conservation laws a number of times. I have pointed you specifically to angular momentum and lepton number conservation laws. Have you investigated these concepts? Yes I have and am not sure why you appear to disagree with or ignore what I have written. Do you disagree that gamma rays are emitted when an electron and a positron annihilate each other.? Are you stating in addition to the above that something else in addition is also part of the result.? Do You agree Cosmic Radiation takes many forms including EM "waves" and Alpha and Beta "Particles" etc.? Do you agree an electron travelling at a fraction of light speed is a beta particle and can affect atoms.? Do you agree electrons are included in negative discharge to ground from lightning clouds, which cause very hot plasmas.? Do you agree Plasma implosion after the lightning strike will result in an increase of temperature in the core of the plasma, to levels suitable for atoms to break down.? Do you agree that lightning produces positrons from atoms affected by the high speed electrons in the plasma. ? Do you disagree that gamma rays are emitted when an electron and a positron annihilate each other.? If gamma rays resulting from an electron positron collision do not happen, then please explain what does happen. An interesting link for those getting bored with the slow speed of this thread. https://phys.org/news/2014-06-universal-lepton-universality.html#nRlv Edited June 9, 2017 by Handy andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Yes I have and am not sure why you appear to disagree with or ignore what I have written. Do you disagree that gamma rays are emitted when an electron and a positron annihilate each other.? No,I don't. I disagree that that is an example of a fermion changing into a boson. It's an example of two fermions changing into bosons, which is a different scenario. Are you stating in addition to the above that something else in addition is also part of the result.? Do You agree Cosmic Radiation takes many forms including EM "waves" and Alpha and Beta "Particles" etc.? Do you agree an electron travelling at a fraction of light speed is a beta particle and can affect atoms.? These have nothing to do with a fermion allegedly changing into a boson. Do you agree electrons are included in negative discharge to ground from lightning clouds, which cause very hot plasmas.? Do you agree Plasma implosion after the lightning strike will result in an increase of temperature in the core of the plasma, to levels suitable for atoms to break down.? Do you agree that lightning produces positrons from atoms affected by the high speed electrons in the plasma. ? Do you disagree that gamma rays are emitted when an electron and a positron annihilate each other.? If gamma rays resulting from an electron positron collision do not happen, then please explain what does happen. Again, not examples of a fermion allegedly changing into a boson. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 ! Moderator Note Unless HandyAndy actually starts bringing some meat to the table I think we should consider locking this thread. The assertion that a fermion can change into a boson is unsupported and unsupportable. It is not evidenced nor propped up by the fact that two fermions in a particle/antiparticle pair can annihilate releasing gamma ray photons. Long lists of pseudo-lawyer "Do you agree..." are not in the spirit of the forum nor do they help bring this thread to a sensible line of discussion. Members will happily explain conservation laws - but this is hampered by a refusal from OP to acknowledge that previous statements were perhaps made in haste and are certainly incorrect. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handy andy Posted June 10, 2017 Author Share Posted June 10, 2017 (edited) Please do, the thread was started as a result of a speculation I bracketed and intended only as a joke, which your average English person would have understood, and not responded too. But due to cultural differences it was taken seriously and some poor responses were posted. Out of devilment I decided to engage. Apologies to all concerned. (The speculation was along the lines off what happens to multiple photons as they descend into a gravity well, or are absorbed by an atom, ie become trapped in a very confined space equivalent to their wavelength. Could they become particles?. Could fermions become photons on decay. Could multiple photons combine and become a higher energy photon) I sited electron positron annihilation producing gamma rays, the thread has gone progressively downhill since it started, it isn't even amusing anymore). Please lock the thread. It wasn't my fault I couldn't help it someone else started the thread not me Edited June 10, 2017 by Handy andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Please do, the thread was started as a result of a speculation I bracketed and intended only as a joke, which your average English person would have understood, and not responded too. But due to cultural differences it was taken seriously and some poor responses were posted. Out of devilment I decided to engage. Apologies to all concerned. (The speculation was along the lines off what happens to multiple photons as they descend into a gravity well, or are absorbed by an atom, ie become trapped in a very confined space equivalent to their wavelength. Could they become particles?. Could fermions become photons on decay. Could multiple photons combine and become a higher energy photon) I sited electron positron annihilation producing gamma rays, the thread has gone progressively downhill since it started, it isn't even amusing anymore). Please lock the thread. It wasn't my fault I couldn't help it someone else started the thread not me You stated something blatantly wrong, and then cited example that did not represent the claim. Hardy-har-har. My sides hurt. Trolling is so funny! [/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Please do, the thread was started as a result of a speculation I bracketed and intended only as a joke, which your average English person would have understood, and not responded too. But due to cultural differences it was taken seriously and some poor responses were posted. Out of devilment I decided to engage. Apologies to all concerned. ! Moderator Note Your joke posts are, in general, becoming a waste of time and resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts