sci.physics.particle

On Mar 22, 8:21=A0pm, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> There is a serious problem in cosmology in that equal amounts of
> matter and antimatter should have created, but we generally only see
> matter, so what happened to all the antimatter?
>
> The solution may be that the antimatter is already bound into what we
> call "normal manner". In this view all normal matter particles such as
> neutrons and protons are actually combinations of equal amounts of
> matter and antimatter.
>
> How is this possible, you may ask? The most fundamental particle of
> antimatter that we recognize is the positron which is the antimatter
> partner of the electron. It is the same as the electron except it has
> a positive charge. Now hold onto your hats, but I would suggest that
> every positive charge you observe in the universe is due to an
> antimatter positron. In this view a proton could be a combination of 2
> positrons and an electron. A neutron could be a combination of
> positron and electron.
>
> So when the universe was created, it did create equal numbers of the
> most fundamental particles in positrons and electrons. I would say due
> to an asymettry in the positron/electron, it is more energy favorable
> for these to recombine into 2 positrons and 1 electron ( a normal
> proton) rather than 2 electrons and 1 positrion (an anti-proton with a
> negative charge). I would bet in accelerator experiments when large
> amounts of energy are avaliable to generate new matter, that most of
> that matter is in the form of normal matter instead of anti-matter.
> Just as in pair production, raw energy generates equal numbers of
> electrons and positrons and they largely recombine back into normal
> matter due to its favorable energy configuration. This energy
> configuration also explains why electrons are numerous and relatively
> free in the atom. The anti-matter counterparts are locked away in the
> nucleus of atoms.
>
> So all the missing antimatter is not missing at all, but is included
> in the protons and neutrons and represents all of the positive charges
> we know of.
>
> To swallow this proposal, you would have to give up the notion that
> positrons and electrons annihiliate into nothing but photons. But I
> would say that what really happens is that the positron and electron
> unite into an aether particle which we simply cannot detect, since it
> is neutrally charged and all of space would be completely filled with
> these particles. If you find that hard to believe, then where do you
> think the positron and electron come from during pair production? You
> can think mass can pop out of nowhere which is a blatant violation of
> the conservation of mass, or you could think that the position/
> electron where there from the start and pair production just breaks up
> the existing pair. If you don't believe in the aether, then do you
> believe in the Higgs particle? This is nothing but an all pervasive
> aether particle field as well. The so called Higgs particle that gives
> particles mass could in fact be the positron/electron aether particle.
> See my TOE which explains how the aether field causes mass and inertia
> at:http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
>
> You would also have to give up the notion that protons and neutrons
> are made up of quarks. But would it not be easier and simpler if we
> didn't have these fractional 1/3 charges and six types, colors,
> flavors and replaced the whole mess with just the positrion and
> electron? We have evidence that the proton is made up of 3 particles,
> but no evidence at all that the neutron is made up of 3 particles.
> Have you ever wondered why every observable particle has only whole
> charge numbers - never 1/3 of a charge? And if quarks are fundamental,
> what are electrons and positrons made up of if not quarks - how
> fundamental could they be if they cannot explain these primary
> particles? How come nobody has found a quark in isolation despite
> tremendous effort to find them and there is nothing in the standard
> model that would preclude finding them? To read more about this
> proposal, ready my paper at:http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/quarks.htm=
l
>
> Under this view, large amounts of antimatter like antiprotons would
> never form since it is energetically unfavorable to do so. We might be
> able to create tiny amounts of antimatter, but these are more like
> freak-of-nature events. The most we might are see are positrons being
> created by high-energy cosmic events, which then immediately recombine
> with electrons to form normal matter/photons and the invisible aether.
>
> So there you have it, a radical solution to where all the antimatter
> went in the universe - it would require tossing out most of the
> standard model, but what the heck - if the standard model cannot
> explain what happened to all the antimatter, then maybe its time has
> come.
>
> Give this solution a chance - it really does explain where all the
> antimatter went!
>
> -fhuantimatter

Another thing you would have to accept is that a positron/electron
aether exists. - And no Uncle Al, tests of Lorentz invariance, MMC and
others do not disprove the existence of an aether. All of these
experiments work by detecting a movement of the aether wind. If the
aether is restrained by gravity like the normal atomosphere, then
there would be little to detect. This is why I had earlier asked how
you could directly detect a positron/electron aether.

I also thought that we could easily reproduce the initial big bang
event by taking a matter and antimatter beams, slowing them down so
the reactions are only due to matter/antimatter anhilliation and just
observe what particles come out of the reaction. I would predict you
see the vast majority resulting in gamma rays, but a tiny amount of
protons would be produced and an even tinier amount of anti-protons
would be produced. These should be easy enough to detect due to their
mass.