sci.physics.particle

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 --

I suppose my first objection to all this would focus
upon the mass difference between the proton and
the electron. Since 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?

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. However, you'd be going
up against that even number, 1836, again. There
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.) Wouldn'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.

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. And this isn't very compatible with the
evidence that supports modern quantum mechanics,
is it?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com