sci.physics.particle

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"PD" wrote in message
news:994d763d-4385-45eb-8f3b-3470f4d84bfc@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
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/electron
> > > pairs. Remarks by PD got me to read the one book I had about quarks
> > > "The Hunting of the Quark" by Michael Riordan. In this book, I found
> > > 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 particle
> > > 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 that
> > > you should see a huge spike of detected particles if you were looking
> > > at the exact mass of the aether particle. On either side of the aether
> > > particle mass, you would see nothing.
>
> > > The discovery of the J/psi particle produced just such an incredible
> > > peak in the data. Like a skyscraper sitting in the middle of a desert,
> > > the experimenters thought there had been an error since they had not
> > > seen anything like it. From the book it appeared this spike was far
> > > 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 have 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 to
> > > 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 important
> > > this be an experiment that only involves positrions and electrons
> > > since this would be the only way to discriminate a background
> > > positron/
> > > electron field. Now that we know what we are looking for, one could
> > > 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 the
> > > J/
> > > Psi is evidence of the charmed quark and its antiparticle. This
> > > appears to be based around the assumption that the J/Psi is composed
> > > of 2 objects orbiting one another like an electron orbiting a proton.
> > > All kinds of impressive predictions were made and confirmed. There was
> > > a prediction of a naked charm particle. Something was found at 1.87
> > > GeV versus a prediction of 1.95GeV - but apparently that was close
> > > enough to close the books on this particle. All very impressive, but
> > > if the assumption was one particle orbiting another, this could also
> > > have easily happened with non-fractional integer charged positrons and
> > > electrons along with all the other impressive predictions. The quark
> > > explaination also does does nothing to explain why the J/Psi peaked in
> > > such an unusual manner. If the J/Psi was just another result of the
> > > 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 highly
> > > energetic positron/electron pairs, that quite a few may become
> > > separated and then would get into this slightly stable orbital pair.
> > > 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 positrion/
> > > electron annihilation). I would think the peak here would be
> > > absolutely enormous - but maybe these were tossed out since scientists
> > > 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 other
> > > aether detection experiments rely on detecting motion through the
> > > aether and if the aether isn't moving, this test isn't going to work
> > > and you can never rule out the existence of the aether based on such
> > > tests. However, this is a direct test of the particles of the aether
> > > and experiment seems to bear out the existence of such an aether with
> > > 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://nobelprize.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

Of course you'd say that.

>
> > - 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 charm-
> > 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,

Of course you'd say that.

> 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

Of course you'd say that.

> 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

Of course you'd say that.


>
> > - 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 available
> > 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
> on the decay modes.

| Really? It's right there.

No it's NOT.