sci.physics.particle

On Apr 7, 1:24=A0am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Apr 6, 11:40 am, PD wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 12:24 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 2, 6:40 am, PD wrote:> On Mar 29, 1=
:17 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Previously, I had asked about how you could probe whether a sea of=

> > > > > positron/electron pairs existed and why there was no missing
> > > > > antimatter because the antimatter is bound up in the positron/elec=
tron
> > > > > pairs. Remarks by PD got me to read the one book I had about quark=
s
> > > > > "The Hunting of the Quark" by Michael Riordan. In this book, I fou=
nd
> > > > > the story of the discovery of the J/psi particle which had to be
> > > > > either the decay product of a positron and electron or the result =
of a
> > > > > collision of positrion and electron. They did the experiment both =
ways
> > > > > and came up with a particle that has a mass of about 3.1GeV.
>
> > > > > Now, this experiment is interesting to me because by my thinking,
> > > > > these positron/electron pairs ought to be everywhere. During parti=
cle
> > > > > collisions, these are actually the source of the mass that is
> > > > > seemingly created during such collisions as they are pulled out of=
the
> > > > > aether. Now if you were doing an experiment involving tracing back=
a
> > > > > pair of positrons/electrons to its parent source and if these
> > > > > positrons/electrons exist everywhere, then it directly follows tha=
t
> > > > > you should see a huge spike of detected particles if you were look=
ing
> > > > > at the exact mass of the aether particle. On either side of the ae=
ther
> > > > > particle mass, you would see nothing.
>
> > > > > The discovery of the J/psi particle produced just such an incredib=
le
> > > > > peak in the data. Like a skyscraper sitting in the middle of a des=
ert,
> > > > > the experimenters thought there had been an error since they had n=
ot
> > > > > seen anything like it. From the book it appeared this spike was fa=
r
> > > > > larger and narrower than any other particle that had ever been
> > > > > observed. There was no explanation for why it peaked this way, but=
if
> > > > > space is filled with positron/electron pairs, it is this sea of
> > > > > particles that immediately springs out. The other particles do hav=
e to
> > > > > be produced by a laborious and chance process of creation, whereas=
the
> > > > > positrion/electron pairs are there for the taking.
>
> > > > > To answer my own original question, this does appear to be a way t=
o
> > > > > directly verify the existence of a positron/electron aether. It's
> > > > > existence must have a large impact on the kinds and quantities of
> > > > > particles that can be knocked out of it. It is critically importan=
t
> > > > > this be an experiment that only involves positrions and electrons
> > > > > since this would be the only way to discriminate a background posi=
tron/
> > > > > electron field. Now that we know what we are looking for, one coul=
d
> > > > > design experiments to directly confirm or deny the existence of a
> > > > > positron/electron pair field.
>
> > > > > In reading further, it is concluded by conventional science that t=
he J/
> > > > > Psi is evidence of the charmed quark and its antiparticle. This
> > > > > appears to be based around the assumption that the J/Psi is compos=
ed
> > > > > of 2 objects orbiting one another like an electron orbiting a prot=
on.
> > > > > All kinds of impressive predictions were made and confirmed. There=
was
> > > > > a prediction of a naked charm particle. Something was found at 1.8=
7
> > > > > GeV versus a prediction of 1.95GeV - but apparently that was close=

> > > > > enough to close the books on this particle. All very impressive, b=
ut
> > > > > if the assumption was one particle orbiting another, this could al=
so
> > > > > have easily happened with non-fractional integer charged positrons=
and
> > > > > electrons along with all the other impressive predictions. The qua=
rk
> > > > > explaination also does does nothing to explain why the J/Psi peake=
d in
> > > > > such an unusual manner. If the J/Psi was just another result of th=
e
> > > > > same kind of collisions as other particles, there should have been=

> > > > > nothing special about it's peak.
>
> > > > > Now if the J/Psi is really due to a brief orbiting of an electron
> > > > > around a positrion, then the 3.1GeV isn't the mass of the aether
> > > > > particle, but it is not unreasonable to think that in a sea of hig=
hly
> > > > > energetic positron/electron pairs, that quite a few may become
> > > > > separated and then would get into this slightly stable orbital pai=
r.
> > > > > Once again, the electron/positron sea would provide a wealth of
> > > > > opportunities for these orbital pairs to form. This does leave the=

> > > > > question about positron/electron pairs emanating directly from the=

> > > > > aether with an energy in the 1GeV range (normal energy for positri=
on/
> > > > > electron annihilation). I would think the peak here would be
> > > > > absolutely enormous - but maybe these were tossed out since scient=
ists
> > > > > knew exactly what these were and ignored them?
>
> > > > > So here is a way to experimentally directly confirm the existence =
of a
> > > > > positron/electron aether in particle acclerator experiments. All o=
ther
> > > > > aether detection experiments rely on detecting motion through the
> > > > > aether and if the aether isn't moving, this test isn't going to wo=
rk
> > > > > and you can never rule out the existence of the aether based on su=
ch
> > > > > tests. However, this is a direct test of the particles of the aeth=
er
> > > > > and experiment seems to bear out the existence of such an aether w=
ith
> > > > > an unusual spike in the matter spectrum.
>
> > > > > -fhuaether
>
> > > > Thanks for trying. You are missing some additional information.
>
> > > > - Richter found the psi by looking in electron-positron collisions.
> > > > Ting found the J by looking in proton-proton collisions. I'm quite
> > > > certain Riordan mentioned that. You can also find this athttp://nobe=
lprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1976/index.html
>
> > > Yes, both sides of the story were presented, but the important fact
> > > was that they were both studying positron/electron reactions.
>
> > I'm not sure how you can gather that from Ting's case. The reacting
> > particles were protons. The created J particle decays 88% of the time
> > into hadrons and only 6% of the time into electrons and positrons. He
> > chose that rare decay channel because electrons and positrons are
> > easily identifiable in detectors and no other reason.
>
> > > > - The presence of the charmed quark was a prediction of a model that=

> > > > explained the observed interaction rates among particles containing =
u,
> > > > d, and s quarks. The presence of a charmed quark implied a bound cha=
rm-
> > > > anticharm meson which would be *unexplainable* by any other bound
> > > > state of electrons-positrons (positronium) or quark-antiquark combos=

> > > > of u, d, or s quarks. The J/psi was what satisfied this *new*
> > > > prediction of an otherwise unaccountable bound state.
>
> > > It seems quite clear that at the discovery of the J/psi, there was no
> > > theory that could account for it.
>
> > I'm sorry, you clearly don't have the history down here. You might
> > need to read something other than your coffee table book. Perhaps you
> > could read Ting's Nobel Lecture and Richter's Nobel lecture at the
> > site I gave you, for starters. Then I can point to more.
>
> I read the speech introduction which states:
>
> "The unique thing about the J-y particle is that it does not belong to
> any of the families as they were known before 1974. Further particles
> have been discovered resembling the J-y one. The reappraisal of
> particle family structures now required has already begun in terms of
> a new dimension, corresponding to the new fourth quark already
> suggested in other contexts."
>
> Are you sure that it is not you who is mistaken about what came first,
> the J/Psi or the charm particle.

Quite. It was predicted in 1970 by Glashow, Iliopoulos, and Maiani,
who proposed it as the "GIM mechanism" to account for observed rates
for particles containing the other quarks. The J/psi was discovered in
1974.

> Ting and Richter as experimentalists
> seemed baffled by their results and left it to the theories to figure
> out how this new particle could possibly fit into the existing model.
>

Again, your shallow reading fails you, and this is why I'm suggesting
you learn more about what *really* happened.

>
>
> > > It wasn't like they were looking for
> > > a particle predicted by the charmed quark. Rather it seems the J/Psi
> > > was shoehorned into fitting the quark model by arbitraily inventing
> > > another quark which had the characteristics needed to explain the J/
> > > Psi.
>
> > That is NOT what happened. Please do not reinvent history based on
> > your reading of a comic book version of the events that actually
> > transpired.
>
> > > Sure it fit a charmed quark, they made if fit - didn't they?? As
> > > I mentioned before the predicted and actual value for the mass of the
> > > naked charm particle was off by 4 percent. By most physics standards,
> > > this is a huge, huge miss - but not for quarks.
>
> > It's not a huge, huge miss when the laws of the interaction (here QCD)
> > are not well understood. This happens more frequently than you think.
>
> Yes, I would imagine this happens quite a bit considering how much is
> "not well understood". Just look at the mass predictions for the Higgs
> particle. In my other post about the search the Higgs, just about any
> high mass unidentified particle could be called the Higgs - or is that
> another supersymettric particle, or just another unknown heavy
> particle - who knows, there is no accuracy at all.

But not to worry. You see, the Higgs is characterized by properties
other than mass. It is expected to behave in specific ways that would
not be shared by other high-mass particles.

This is the part that you need a much stronger education on. You have
this impression that all you need to match is mass and charge and you
can make whatever model you want inside those bounds. This is why I
suggested you learn about selection rules, branching ratios,
production cross-sections, and other quantum numbers -- so you can see
how much information is really gathered about particles and their
interactions.

> I still don't see
> how they could possibly separate these possibilites even if they found
> new heavy particles.
>
>
>
> > > > - The decay products of the J/psi are electrons and positrons only 6=
%
> > > > of the time. Another 6% of the time, its muons and antimuons, which =
is
> > > > quite distinct from electrons and positrons. Most of the time, the J=
/
> > > > psi decays into hadrons. This is possibly something that Riordan
> > > > neglected to mention in his coffee table book but is readily availab=
le
> > > > athttp://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/m070.pdf
>
> > > Thanks for the detailed reference, this is where I really count on
> > > your responses to bring me important information. I could find nothing=

>
> ...
>
> read more =BB