There are several quantum numbers used to explain the energy states of particles. For example, no two electrons can have the same four quantum numbers in an atom. Now, I was wondering if the following "guess" I had about antimatter particles is plausible: a quantum number is added to "describe" the states of an electron and a positron, a quantum number that would have a two-valuedness with the purpose of "describing" one more degree of freedom, where, for example, an electron and a positron can't have the same set of quantum numbers and as a result these particles are observed as a matter/antimatter pair. Perhaps my "guess" is none other that the lepton number and I am overthinking it?  However,  do you agree if adding a completely new quantum number (to explain why the imbalance in matter and antimatter) is plausible?   

What kind of third number?

Would you elaborate further?

4 hours ago, Pablo2019 said:

There are several quantum numbers used to explain the energy states of particles.

Yes, there are several quantum numbers, but they do not explain energy states, they are firmly underpinned by QED. 

4 hours ago, Pablo2019 said:

Now, I was wondering if the following "guess" I had about antimatter particles is plausible: a quantum number is added to "describe" the states of an electron and a positron, a quantum number that would have a two-valuedness with the purpose of "describing" one more degree of freedom, where, for example, an electron and a positron can't have the same set of quantum numbers and as a result these particles are observed as a matter/antimatter pair.

I don't think an electron has a degree of freedom to become a positron. That just makes no sense. And as a positron impossibly can be part of a normal matter atom because it has a positive charge (not even talking about its immanent annihilation by an electron), and is exactly the opposite in its properties in every aspect except its mass from the electron, I think the Pauli principle does not even apply.

4 hours ago, Pablo2019 said:

Perhaps my "guess" is none other that the lepton number and I am overthinking it?

You are definitely overthinking this.

4 hours ago, Pablo2019 said:

However,  do you agree if adding a completely new quantum number (to explain why the imbalance in matter and antimatter) is plausible?

No. First, as implied by the above, if this 'new quantum number'  does not roll out of QED, it has no physical meaning. Second, I have no idea why your idea would explain the imbalance in matter and antimatter.

2 hours ago, thethinkertank said:

What kind of third number?

Third? It would be the fifth.

In Standard Model, electron has Lepton number +1, positron (antimatter antiparticle of electron) has Lepton number -1

If they annihilate together there are created (typically) two gamma photons.

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

Photon has Lepton number 0.

So we have equation for Lepton number conservation like:

+1 -1 = 0 + 0

so

0=0

Free electron or free positron cannot disappear without presence of its antiparticle because that would violate Lepton number conservation (and many other conservations).

Similar is with pair-production but in opposite direction.

 

Charge q is also quantum number. Electron has -1e and positron has +1e.

 

 

Some particles are their own antiparticles. i.e. matter and antimatter in the one. i.e. they have such properties that it's not possible to distinguish whether they are matter now, or whether they are antimatter now. Example of particle which is its own antiparticle is neutral pion [math]\pi^0[/math]

 

2 hours ago, Eise said:

 I don't think an electron has a degree of freedom to become a positron. That just makes no sense. And as a positron impossibly can be part of a normal matter atom because it has a positive charge (not even talking about its immanent annihilation by an electron), and is exactly the opposite in its properties in every aspect except its mass from the electron, I think the Pauli principle does not even apply.

Indeed. There would be a violation of conservation of charge, as you imply.

electrons and positrons are different particles. When they annihilate it is possible for them to occupy the same (i.e. parallel) spin state, giving the positronium (their bound state) a spin of 1 (ortho-positronium). In this annihilation, three photons are typically emitted. They could not occupy these states if they were identical.

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

 

21 hours ago, Pablo2019 said:

that would have a two-valuedness with the purpose of "describing" one more degree of freedom, where, for example, an electron and a positron can't have the same set of quantum numbers and as a result these particles are observed as a matter/antimatter pair. 

The charges are interwoven, 

 

"Following the discovery of quarks inside protons and neutrons in the early 1970s, some theorists suggested quarks might themselves contain particles known as 'preons'"

Of course, preons are Planck scale charges. This is not a part of the standard model, Preons were dismissed.

Edited June 17, 20196 yr by PervPhysProf

14 hours ago, PervPhysProf said:

Preons were dismissed.

They were not dismissed. People are still working on preon theories of various sorts. But there is no evidence for any of them at the moment (and I dontthink they are currently testable).

On 6/17/2019 at 2:02 AM, Eise said:

Yes, there are several quantum numbers, but they do not explain energy states, they are firmly underpinned by QED. 

I don't think an electron has a degree of freedom to become a positron. That just makes no sense. And as a positron impossibly can be part of a normal matter atom because it has a positive charge (not even talking about its immanent annihilation by an electron), and is exactly the opposite in its properties in every aspect except its mass from the electron, I think the Pauli principle does not even apply.

You are definitely overthinking this.

No. First, as implied by the above, if this 'new quantum number'  does not roll out of QED, it has no physical meaning. Second, I have no idea why your idea would explain the imbalance in matter and antimatter.

Third? It would be the fifth.

Is that Beethoven in your avatar? Ludwig Van Beethoven!?

Edited June 18, 20196 yr by PervPhysProf

12 hours ago, PervPhysProf said:

Is that Beethoven in your avatar? Ludwig Van Beethoven!?

No. Link.

And I don't know if you were just ironic, but to be sure: an electron in an atom is completely characterized by 4 quantum numbers. Introducing a new one therefore would be the fifth. No idea why thethinkertank came at the idea that it would be the third number. I assume because he thinks a lot, but does not know a lot...

7 hours ago, Eise said:

No. Link.

And I don't know if you were just ironic, but to be sure: an electron in an atom is completely characterized by 4 quantum numbers. Introducing a new one therefore would be the fifth. No idea why thethinkertank came at the idea that it would be the third number. I assume because he thinks a lot, but does not know a lot...

There's no basis for a 5th quantum number in the standard model just because there's more up quarks (matter) than antimatter says nothing about the electrons which are negatively charged over positrons. 

However I might know the orchestral arrangement, not a proof I'm willing to spill at a place like this

Edited June 19, 20196 yr by PervPhysProf

Equating up quarks with matter is incorrect. All quarks are considered matter

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Equating up quarks with matter is incorrect

Atomic nuclei either have two up quarks and one down quark, 3 up and 3 down, or 5 up and 4 down

Sometimes atomic nuclei have many protons and neutrons 

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

All quarks are considered matter

Nice edit, slick

1 hour ago, PervPhysProf said:

Atomic nuclei either have two up quarks and one down quark, 3 up and 3 down, or 5 up and 4 down

No, not that either.

Protons have two up quarks and a down. Neutrons have two downs and an up. Nuclei can have many protons, and most kinds of nuclei have even more neutrons.

 

1 minute ago, swansont said:

No, not that either.

Protons have two up quarks and a down. Neutrons have two downs and an up. Nuclei can have many protons, and most kinds of nuclei have even more neutrons.

 

Yeah, 1 proton & 1 neutron: 3-2; 2 protons and 1 neutron 5-4

However that is a matter of semantics.

What's your point?

13 minutes ago, PervPhysProf said:

Yeah, 1 proton & 1 neutron: 3-2; 2 protons and 1 neutron 5-4

However that is a matter of semantics.

What's your point?

Trying to get better information disseminated in the thread. You were mistaken, and I pointed it out.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Trying to get better information disseminated in the thread. You were mistaken, and I pointed it out.

Great!