sci.physics.particle

Dear frankli...:

On Mar 25, 10:00=A0am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
=2E..
> Another thing you would have to accept is that a
> positron/electron aether exists.

Define this. Please describe how free electrons can survive in it for
any finite distance.

> - 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.

Stellar aberration disproves a "displaceable" aether. This only
leaves the Lorentz aether.

> If the aether is restrained by gravity like the normal
> atomosphere, then there would be little to detect.

Obviated by observation. The only aether that survives experiment
displaces *not at all* with the passage of matter. Matter must
propagate through it just like light. Or there is no such
unobservable aether.

> This is why I had earlier asked how you could
> directly detect a positron/electron aether.

All free electrons (such as used in a CRT) would be scattered
abnormally.

> 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.

Done. Photons. Photons are not expected to have existed at the
instant of the Big Bang, since gravitation was expected to congeal
before EM (of which photons are composed / represent).

> 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.

Right, except for the protons and anti-protons.

> These should be easy enough to detect due to
> their mass.

And charge.

David A. Smith