[Plutonium]

It's still relevant to the question.

[Enthalpy]

No theory tells the electron has to be elementary. But hints exist:
- It behaves elementary in any particle accelerator, while protons and neutrons are split since long;
- The ratio between its magnetic and mechanic momentums corresponds to an elementary particle.

[Jorriss]

The electron doesn't decay, but elementary particles can decay into other particles.  

Electrons can be annihilated through collision with positrons - I would imagine that releases a lot of energy. That's not the same as splitting it though.  This is real fundamental physics though, I can't say much about what gives a particle its charge.

[manonemission]

The electron doesn't decay, but elementary particles can decay into other particles.  

Electrons can be annihilated through collision with positrons - I would imagine that releases a lot of energy. That's not the same as splitting it though.  This is real fundamental physics though, I can't say much about what gives a particle its charge.

Finally someone mentioned positrons.  Supposedly they form as a pair with electrons so it would be more accurate to say that an electron is 1/2 of a pair that is generating by splitting a high-energy gamma photon.  Check out "pair production" in wikipedia.

[Borek]

You are just creating unfounded personal theories. Apparently most of the electrons were created in a different way (hint: we don't see as many positrons as we see electrons).

[Jorriss]

The electron doesn't decay, but elementary particles can decay into other particles.  

Electrons can be annihilated through collision with positrons - I would imagine that releases a lot of energy. That's not the same as splitting it though.  This is real fundamental physics though, I can't say much about what gives a particle its charge.

Finally someone mentioned positrons.  Supposedly they form as a pair with electrons so it would be more accurate to say that an electron is 1/2 of a pair that is generating by splitting a high-energy gamma photon.  Check out "pair production" in wikipedia.

I would imagine most electrons, that were not created during the big bang, are created through beta decay. As Borek said, positrons and electrons annihilate each other so if they are both created, they'll both be gone shortly after.

[manonemission]

I would imagine most electrons, that were not created during the big bang, are created through beta decay. As Borek said, positrons and electrons annihilate each other so if they are both created, they'll both be gone shortly after.

I've had that thought too.  That leads to the question of whether there is some way that neutrons can be formed besides electron degeneration.  It seems logical that in an early, hot dense universe, gravity could be strong enough to compress energy directly into neutrons, assuming that energy's existence preceded that of particles, which I do but I'm not sure there's really evidence either way.

[Jorriss]

I would imagine most electrons, that were not created during the big bang, are created through beta decay. As Borek said, positrons and electrons annihilate each other so if they are both created, they'll both be gone shortly after.

I've had that thought too.  That leads to the question of whether there is some way that neutrons can be formed besides electron degeneration.  It seems logical that in an early, hot dense universe, gravity could be strong enough to compress energy directly into neutrons, assuming that energy's existence preceded that of particles, which I do but I'm not sure there's really evidence either way.

I don't know what you are getting at. This is starting to sound like pseudoscience.

[antimatter101]

The standard model of physics is made of 16 particles - the leptons which are the electron, the muon, the tau, the electron neutrino, the muon neutrino, and the tau neutrino - the gauge bosons which are the photon, the gluon, the graviton, and the w and z particle (two different particles from a similar force) - and the quarks - the up quark, the down quark, the strange quark, the charmed quark, the top quark, and the bottom quark.

All of those particles are fundamental, meaning they only can be splitted into energy. Matter does not exist since it is only a form of energy, like a photon or gluon or whatever. What about mass and weight? The universe is shrouded in a higgs field. The higgs bosons (not included in the standard model) interact with some particles and do not interact with others. THe top quark should have a same intrinsic mass as a strange quark or whatever, but it interacts so strongly with the higgs field that it has the mass of a gold nucleus! wow. THe photon (carrier of electromagnetic force) does not interact with the higgs field at all, so it has no mass. BUt the W and Z particles, carriers of the weak force (force of radioactive decay) interact with the higgs field so strongly that they have to decay into an electron and an electron antineutrino, or a positron or a electron neutrino (depending on the particle type). Up and down quarks make up protons and neutrons which make up atoms which make up the universe, but THEY ARE ONLY PARTICLES OF ENERGY WHICH INTERACT WITH THE HIGGS FIELD TO PRODUCE MATTER LIKE PROPERTIES!

If you don't trust me search google, or wikipedia, or youtube.

[Borek]

If you don't trust me search google, or wikipedia, or youtube.

I freely admit to not know whether you are 100% right or not, as I don't know enough about high energy and particle physics. But we have long left grounds we feel safe on. If anyone wants to discuss such things, I suggest moving to some physics forums, where you can find people better prepared to explain and understand the problem and its implications.

Topic locked.