sci.physics.particle

On Mar 25, 11:53=A0am, "Paine" wrote:
> On Mar 22, 8:21 pm, 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.html
>
> > 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
>
> 'Lo FHU --
Thank you for taking the time to come up with these good questions.
You bring up good points which can be explained.

>
> I suppose my first objection to all this would focus
> upon the mass difference between the proton and
> the electron. =A0Since a proton is 1836 times more
> massive than an electron (and so an antielectron as
> well), how can a proton be made of just three of
> these, two positrons and an electron?

Well, first, you would have to come up with a mechanism for mass. Just
what is it about a proton that makes it 1836 times more massive? When
it comes right down to it, it just means it takes 1836 times more
energy to push accelerate a proton through space than it does an
electron (F=3Dma). In my theory, all of space is filled with these
positron/electron dipole pairs which are similar to neutrons. Because
they are dipolar, they loosely stick together. To accelerate a
particle through this field, it takes 1836 times more force to push a
proton through this field than an electron. How difficult this would
be would depend on 2 factors. First, it would depend on the physical
size of the particle. A proton consisting of 3 particles is obviously
bigger than an electron that only consists of 1. Second, it would
depend on how "sticky" the particle was in relation to the dipole
pairs. A proton is likely constructed as a central negative charge
with 2 positive charges to the side like carbon dioxide. In addition
to it being larger, it is sticker due to the shielded electron charge.
It would be interesting if one could come up with a proton model that
would exactly explain the 1836 times more stickier than an electron.

If the mass only depended on physical size, then you might expect that
a proton would have to be 1836 times as large as an electron, but it
doesn't need to be. It is the stickiness that also matters.

Incidentally, the standard model of 3 quarks can't explain this mass
difference either.

>
> Next, i suppose i might find some solace in the
> whole idea if you had stated that there are actually
> hundreds and hundreds of electrons and positrons
> that make up a proton. =A0However, you'd be going
> up against that even number, 1836, again. =A0There
> would have to be an even number of antielectrons
> and an even number of electrons, which might
> work well for neutrons, but not for protons. (IIRC,
> a neutron is just a bit more than two electron
> masses larger than a proton.) =A0Wouldn't a proton
> have to be 1837 times, or 1835 times (an odd
> number of times) larger than an electron/positron?
>
> Then in addition, it seems there would have to be
> a force similar to the SNF, which works to keep
> protons "glued" together in an atom's nucleus in
> spite of the obvious problem of "like charges repel".
> And this new force would be at work *inside* each
> proton and neutron in a fashion opposite to that of
> the SNF, because this force would be up against a
> problem of "unlike charges attract". This new force
> would have to keep the positrons and electrons at
> least far enough apart to maintain equilibrium while
> preventing any matter/antimatter pair from coming
> together and annihilating each other.

First, you have to get it out of your head that matter and antimatter
annihiliate each other into nothing. Instead, think positron and
electron form neutrons, so there is no need at all to separate matter
and antimatter.

My theory does extend to explain that the nucleus is not a ball of
positrons and neutrons. It is actually a checkerboard alternating
sequence of proton/electron/neutron. The electrons are bound in the
nucleus when an atom is in the ground state. Therefore, there is no
need for the strong nuclear force and the atom can be held together
only by conventional electrostatic charges. See my paper:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/frankhu/buildatm.htm


>
> So, if you are saying that there is another force,
> with about the same power as the SNF, and yet
> even more confined than the SNF, and that works
> in an opposite fashion to separate electrons and
> positrons within a proton or neutron, then would
> this new force not cancel out the SNF altogether?
>
> Lastly, this whole thing seems to sound to me like
> the old "billiard ball" way of discussing components
> of the atom. =A0And this isn't very compatible with the
> evidence that supports modern quantum mechanics,
> is it?

I'm glad you recognized my scientific philosophy of trying to explain
everything on terms that could be explained on a billiard ball table.
No evidence that I know of in quantum mechanics directly contradicts
the model I have proposed and the explanations are often much simpler
and more complete for the same phenomenon. If you have evidence, then
lets hear it. I can explain gravity, charge, inertia, and mass - the
standard model explains nothing of these. How great can the standard
model and quantum mechanics be if it can explain these four
fundamental concepts at all.

>
> happy days and...
> =A0 =A0starry starry nights!
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine
>
> =A0P.S. Thank YOU for reading!
>
> =A0 =A0 P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://painellsworth.net
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://savethechildren.org
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://eBook-eDen.s=
ecretsgolden.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -