Simply forget that you ever heard that "bosons=energy and fermions = matter" and your problem is solved. It's a very misleading identification at best, nonsense at worst... those are completely different categories.

Saying that is a bit like identifying dessert = tasty , main course = nutritious, and then asking why steaks taste good. Energy is a property of physical states, and everything that goes on contributes to it. Matter is a word from everyday language without a sharp technical definition. Usually, one means a collection of particles of any type that are much slower than c.

(December 3, 2015 at 10:13 am)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(December 3, 2015 at 9:24 am)Quantum Wrote: That statement is simply wrong. Of the four most massive elementary particles known, three are bosons - the Higgs, the Z and the W. Only the heaviest, the Top Quark, is a Fermion.

The only conceptual differences between bosons and fermions is that the latter have half integer spin and adhere to the pauli exclusion principle - that's it.

Thanks, One more question (I hope) and I shall understand this better.

Since mass is the measure of energy, how can the most massive particle be a fermion? In fact, how can any fermion have mass? Unless mass is the interplay of energy and matter. If that is the case (caveat for what follows: it may not be what actually happens. I'm guessing, so trash it as it deserves. My feelings will not be hurt)then when energy is converted into matter there will be less energy actually converted than was originally present, while the unconverted energy acts as a catalyst, bringing about the conversion. Is that the energy that is lost or that interacts with the new matter to give it mass?

The latter part, while I don't understand it entirely and disagree with the use of terminology, resembles what happens. Particles with low mass but carrying large energy because of their speed can collide and form particles with more mass but less speed. The surplus energy that is not needed for the mass of the new particles goes into their movement.

Mass is just a measure of the energy content of something when it is at rest.

(December 3, 2015 at 6:21 am)Quantum Wrote:

(December 2, 2015 at 5:35 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Can you expand upon this please? I don't understand the "removes" part. Removed to where?

The idea is that the universe expands, and you send a photon on its way. Once it reaches the destination, it will be redder, i.e. will have lost energy because the wave was stretched. This way, we seem to lose energy as the universe expands. For example, the photons in the cosmic microwave background which we observe now, had 1100 times the juice when they went on their voyage 13.7 billion years ago. For the question where this energy goes see my post above (note that when we ask the question: "where does the energy go", we implicitely assume that it is conserved, because otherwise it can just vanish or appear without having to "go anywhere").

Thanks. Not sure I totally grasp the concept but believe I have a better understanding.

(December 3, 2015 at 10:18 am)Quantum Wrote: Simply forget that you ever heard that "bosons=energy  and fermions = matter" and your problem is solved. It's a very misleading identification at best, nonsense at worst... those are completely different categories.

Saying that is a bit like identifying dessert = tasty , main course = nutritious, and then asking why steaks taste good. Energy is a property of physical states, and everything that goes on contributes to it. Matter is a word from everyday language without a sharp technical definition. Usually, one means a collection of particles of any type that are much slower than c.

This adds a new dimension to my book. I may have to rewrite chapter 3. I want it to be accssable to a lay reader, while at the same time not make scientists groan. What did Dickenson say? "Tell the truth, but tell it slant."

Keep asking then. Remember - when it comes out I will read it

(December 3, 2015 at 11:08 am)Quantum Wrote:

(December 3, 2015 at 10:13 am)Rhondazvous Wrote: Thanks, One more question (I hope) and I shall understand this better.

Since mass is the measure of energy, how can the most massive particle be a fermion? In fact, how can any fermion have mass? Unless mass is the interplay of energy and matter. If that is the case (caveat for what follows: it may not be what actually happens. I'm guessing, so trash it as it deserves. My feelings will not be hurt)then when energy is converted into matter there will be less energy actually converted than was originally present, while the unconverted energy acts as a catalyst, bringing about the conversion. Is that the energy that is lost or that interacts with the new matter to give it mass?

The latter part, while I don't understand it entirely and disagree with the use of terminology, resembles what happens. Particles with low mass but carrying large energy because of their speed can collide and form particles with more mass but less speed. The surplus energy that is not needed for the mass of the new particles goes into their movement.

Mass is just a measure of the energy content of something when it is at rest.

Yes, you understood me.

You know I'm using the terminology of a lay person, while you use it professionally. This is good. As an English grad, I appreciate learning language on a higher level.

(December 3, 2015 at 11:16 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(December 3, 2015 at 6:21 am)Quantum Wrote: The idea is that the universe expands, and you send a photon on its way. Once it reaches the destination, it will be redder, i.e. will have lost energy because the wave was stretched. This way, we seem to lose energy as the universe expands. For example, the photons in the cosmic microwave background which we observe now, had 1100 times the juice when they went on their voyage 13.7 billion years ago. For the question where this energy goes see my post above (note that when we ask the question: "where does the energy go", we implicitely assume that it is conserved, because otherwise it can just vanish or appear without having to "go anywhere").

Thanks. Not sure I totally grasp the concept but believe I have a better understanding.

What point would you like clarified?

(December 3, 2015 at 11:40 am)Quantum Wrote:

(December 3, 2015 at 11:16 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Thanks. Not sure I totally grasp the concept but believe I have a better understanding.

What point would you like clarified?

None. This just needs time to sink into my pea brain.

(December 3, 2015 at 11:39 am)Quantum Wrote: Keep asking then. Remember - when it comes out I will read it

Just tell me what the K stands for so I can put you in the acknowledgements (that is, if your former username is your real name).

A good part of the 'heft' it takes to lift an object (go do that right now and read along) is due to the mass equivalent of the enormous energy represented by the near light speed velocity of the quarks whirling around in the (arbitrarily nomenclated) protons and neutrons.

As noted above, we probably have a better conception of energy than we do mass.  We don't really have experience with matter that does not have a healthy admixture of energy in it.

Who knows what the 'pure' form would be like if we could palm a chunk?