sci.physics.particle

On Mar 26, 6:55=A0am, PD wrote:
> On Mar 26, 1:15=A0am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 1:57=A0pm, PD wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 25, 3:39=A0pm, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 25, 1:06=A0pm, PD wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 22, 10:21=A0pm, 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 wh=
at we
> > > > > > call "normal manner". In this view all normal matter particles s=
uch 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 antima=
tter
> > > > > > partner of the electron. It is the same as the electron except i=
t 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 combinatio=
n of 2
> > > > > > positrons and an electron. A neutron could be a combination of
> > > > > > positron and electron.
>
> > > > > This would immediately demand accounting for selection rules in
> > > > > observed reactions that seem to obey baryon number conservation an=
d
> > > > > lepton number conservation, which your model would immediately bre=
ak.
> > > > > Since the selection rules are apparently obeyed, and your model sa=
ys
> > > > > there is no earthly reason for those selection rules, we have a
> > > > > spectacular experimental problem. Normally, when something happens=

> > > > > that a model says should NOT happen, or when a model allows someth=
ing
> > > > > to happen and it NEVER happens, this spells trouble for the model.=

>
> > > > Could you explain a conservation selection rule that my model would
> > > > immediately break?
>
> > > I already told you two examples: baryon number conservation and lepton=

> > > number conservation. If you don't know what those selection rules are,=

> > > then proceed immediately to the library and pick up a copy of Don
> > > Perkins' book. This is manifest in many, many reactions.
>
> > > You also need to account for the positive, neutral, and in fact
> > > negative baryons with your model.
>
> > > In particular, I'd be interested in you explaining why the decay rate
> > > and the decay products of the neutral lambda baryon are different than=

> > > the neutral neutron.
>
> > I am glad you asked. I did research into your question and this is
> > what I think is going on with lambda decay.
>
> > Based on these referenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_particlehtt=
p://en.wikipedia.org/w...
>
> > Decay sequence is:
>
> > Lambda ->
>
> > Decay to Pion- and Proton
>
> > Pion - decay to Muon and neutrino
>
> > Muon decay to electron and 2 neutrino
>
> > The Pion basically decays into an electron and 3 neutrinos.
>

I'm surprised that you didn't comment on my explanation of beta decay
which eliminates the need for the W particle and the weak force
entirely. I believe the best way to unify the forces it to remove as
many fictitious forces as possible. Both the strong and weak forces
are unncessary in my model. This leaves only the magnetic,
electrostatic and gravity forces. Magnetic forces are electrostatic in
nature (not just related, but a direct consequence and made out of an
alignment of electrostatic fields in the aether) and I am still trying
to fit gravity under the electrostatic force.

> Keep in mind that the production of the first neutrino occurs at a
> measurable time and distance apart from the production of the other
> two neutrinos. During the 2 microseconds or so that the muon lives, it
> travels tens of centimeters, leaving a detectable trail as it goes,
> before producing the electron and two neutrinos.

Yes, I have seen the pictures of such decays, although it seems we pay
a lot of attention to particles that hardly exist and it is unclear to
me whether these particles are real or just an artifact of the method
used to detect them which hasn't changed that much since cloud
chambers (something I could make in my kitchen) were invented. After
all, these particles are not travelling in a pristine vacuum
environment as we might we led to believe, but rather in an a atom
filled environment with the particle colliding and ionizing atoms and
losing energy all along the way. It leads one to wonder if the
particle didn't have all it's energy being stripped along its path,
would it last longer or measure a different mass? Would it even exist?
I suppose we now have electronic detectors which are vastly different
than the bubble chamber sort. Do we see different or identical
behavior depending on the type of detector used?

I say this because my model would pretty much have to say an electron,
is an electron, is an electron. A pion and muon would have to be some
modified energy state of the electron - something like how the same
set of atoms can combine to form different chemical compounds.

You ask good questions, although does the standard model have good
answers to these same questions. But, I suppose one could always dream
up a theory that matched observation. There is no shortage of crackpot
theories that exactly predict all kinds of properties but have nothing
to do with reality. And so it could be with any standard model theory
geared to match up with observations.

> Note also that the
> neutrinos are of two distinct kinds, and they are different in that
> they produce different reactions in the matter they encounter -- this
> has been also measured.

Yes, I have noted the differences between electron and muon neutrinos.
I don't think it is inconceivable that if the neutrino is just an
isolated wave packet in the aehter, that it may have mutliple modes in
whch it reacts in collisions. One mode kicks out a clean muon, the
other kicks out a spray of positrons/electrons. So we see two kinds of
reactions and we assign them 2 different names, but do we really know
what particle produced them? Perhaps neutrinos don't oscillate as has
been suggested, but merely take on a collision form at random. So from
all the solar neutrinos (all the same in my book), only a third of
them are collide in the electron neutrino way, the other third,
collide in the muon electrino way, and the rest collide in the tau
way. So all neutrinos accounted for and no oscillation or mass
required.

So there is the question of why it takes a
> muon (which must be an electron plus energy according to you) over two
> microseconds to dispense with the excess energy. The same question
> goes for the pion (which is also an electron plus energy in your book)
> and why it has its own characteristic lifetime before dispensing with
> one bucket of energy, to produce another electron which later
> dispenses with two buckets of energy. And then there's the interesting
> question about why the pion doesn't dispense two buckets of energy
> first and then one -- why isn't there a particle in between the pion
> and the final state electron that has only one bucket of extra energy
> in it.
Yes, very interesting questions. All of these questions present
themselves and think it is the mark of a good model, that it brings up
such questions so that they may be subjected to experiment. Now since
this is the first time I have examined decay in such detail, I could
only speculate why. Although I would imagine that whatever you came up
in the standard model could possibly apply just as well since the
fractional charges play no part in the final result and might as well
be calculated with integral charge values as my model would require.

What I didn't hear in your response was that anything I was proposing
was already ruled out experimentally. I suppose that is the best that
my model could hope for since it is only at the very "wordy" model
stage - very much like saying the "Earth goes around the sun rather
than the sun going around the Earth". Not very detailed, but yet has a
profound effect on our understanding. So you ask questions which I
currently cannot answer, but it is possible that these could be
answered. It would be much different if you pointed out a particle
that would clearly violate fermion conservation if only integral
charges and positrons/electrons were the only constituents.

> Oh, and by the way, the "bucket of energy" that you think the
> neutrino is, also carries angular momentum, and unlike a photon (which
> is the usual "bucket" of energy), the neutrino has half-integer spin
> rather than whole-integer spin.

I wouldn't exactly call the neutrino in my book a bucket. Photons
carry thier energy in widely spread waves generally like waves in the
sea. A neutrino would be more like a tiny bullet of a wave. The
closest comparison would be like the row of biliard balls I had
explained earlier with the wave transferring through individual
particles.

Oh, and by the way, the reaction rate
> of the neutrino kind of "bucket of energy" is markedly different than
> other buckets of energy.

As it should be.

> At this point, it might also help if you read
> Pauli's 1945 Nobel lecture (which is aimed at the lay public) in which
> he describes the many ways that a neutrino is markedly different than
> a bucket of energy. Oh, and you may also want to review the same
> lectures for the winners of the 1988 and 1995 prizes to see more about
> neutrinos and how they are different than what you think they are.
>
> I notice that you haven't looked up the Gell-Mann lecture on quarks
> and why it's about much more than the structure of protons and
> neutrons (or other hadrons). You can start here:http://nobelprize.org/nobe=
l_prizes/physics/laureates/1969/index.html
> but in the end, I heartily recommend that you read more than wiki
> articles. You are attempting to brain surgery after reading a few web
> articles on first aid, and you seem stubbornly resistant to the notion
> that there might be more relevant information than what you are
> finding with a casual perusal of easy sources on the web. There IS
> better information on the web, but not all of it is free, and you
> certainly aren't looking in the right places.

Well I did read the one book I had on quarks and lo and behold, it
gave me the answer on how to directly probe for the positron/electron
aether with accelerator experiments and such a probe has been
confirmed with the J/Psi particle. On the contrary, I totally welcome
any information you can give me. I enjoy digging into everything you
say and the detail in which you go to. It has been a fun few days of
hard digging to provide you with these responses.

Wiki articles definitely have thier limitations, but there were none
in this instance since I just needed the facts about particle decay
sequence. I do find that they get to the point and provide a jumping
point for more detailed searches. I did go back over the list of all
possible particles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons (yes, I know another wiki
page)
Since charge is conserved on all particles, every particle can
trivially be composed of nothing but positrons/electrons - every
particle eventually decaying into only these 2 particles. The only
particle that would have presented any problem would have been the
neutron which would seem to be an apparent violation of conservation
of fermions (the only conservation rule required since only positrons/
electron exist) since a neutron would start with 2 but the products
have 3 in the proton plus another electron. I have explained this as
the result of a reaction from a collision with a neutrino which is
nothing more than an electron/positron pair with a lot of kinetic
energy behind it. I wonder if the entire reason for the quark theory
is that nobody could explain the behavior of neutrons with only
integer charges.

My solution is trival and experimentally justifed. The lack of an anti-
neutrino could be tested. I believe I had a discussion on this
previously in which I argued, the decay of fission products is not
conclusive proof of the anti-neutrino. It still appears to be up in
the air whether there is any difference between the neutrino and
antineutrino - dectectors appear to treat them the same. My model
would largely rule out the antineutrino. In the energtic environment
of nearly uncontrolled fission, I would think that this produces
neutrinos without beta decay. I think it would more convincing if you
put a vat of tritium next to the SNO detector and see if you saw
anything.

>
> PD
>
>
>
> > In my
> > model, neutrinos are not mass particles and they represent energy
> > being absorbed into the aether matrix. It is very much like a line of
> > billiard balls where you hit one end and row of balls absorb and
> > transfer the energy to the last ball in the line which goes flying
> > off. So neutrinos represent no initial mass particles.
>
> > The proton is a combination of 2 positrons and an electron.
>
> > You add up the proton and pion and you get a total of 2 positrons and
> > 2 electrons which account for the neutral charge. I conclude that a
> > lambda particle is really a proton with a highly energetic electron.
> > It releases 3 neutrinos's worth of energy during decay. All charges
> > are conserved in the decay.
>
> > Now compare this with the neutral neutron decay.
>
> > Unlike lambda decay, the neutron decay is not random, it is caused by
> > an incoming neutrino. If a free neutron never ran into a neutrino, it
> > would never decay according to my model. This free neutron decay is
> > often recognized as producing an anti-neutrino, but the experimental
> > results can be interpreted as a neutrino as the initial reactant
> > rather than the anti-neutrino product. In almost all cases I have
> > studied, anywhere you see the anti-neutrino mentioned, it really means
> > a neutrino has collided and combined with the particle under
> > consideration.
>
> > The Neutral neutron starts with a neutron which consists of 1 positron
> > and 1 electron.
>
> > Decay is caused by neutrino which is actually an aether particle which
> > adds 1 positron, 1 electron. This creates a 2 positron, 2 electron
> > combination.
>
> > This decays to proton which is (2 positron, 1 electron) + 1 electron
> > and no anti-neutrinos.
>
> > All charges and leptons are once again conserved.
>
> > Now you asked about what is the difference. I would think that in the
> > case of a Lambda, you are starting out with something which is mostly
> > bound as a proton with an electron which is just busting to get out.
> > It has a long lifetime, but nothing close to the neutral neutron which
> > can last several seconds because it has to wait for a chance collision
> > with a neutrino to trigger the decay.
>
> > One could test this model by detecting more rapid beta decay near high
> > neutrino sources. Or you could measure the lack of anti-neutrinos
> > coming from a high beta decay source by putting a beta decay source
> > next to a neutrino detector. In fact, you might see a decrease in
> > neutrinos from the neutrinos being absorbed by the beta decay source.
>
> > I am glad you asked this question because this is the sort of scenario
> > where my model could quite easily fail. My model still requires
> > reactants and products to be conserved, so experimental data showing
> > these quantities cannot be conserved would be bad for the model. But
> > instead of showing the model failing in a situation I had not
> > considered before, it shows that it handles it correctly and gives me
> > even more confidence that the model is correct. Thank you.
>
> > > > In all of the particle decay formulations that I
> > > > have looked at, everything is conserved. One peculiarity that I use
> > > > though is that particles do not decay randomly, rather, neutrinos
> > > > which contribute a positron/electron to the equation are used to
> > > > balance the results rather than using anti-neutrino in beta decay. I=
s
> > > > there some particle that can ONLY be explained by the fractional
> > > > charge quark rather than just positron/electron combinations? I am
> > > > really puzzled why science used the 1/3 quark charges.
>
> > > > > > So when the universe was created, it did create equal numbers of=
the
> > > > > > most fundamental particles in positrons and electrons. I would s=
ay due
> > > > > > to an asymettry in the positron/electron, it is more energy favo=
rable
> > > > > > for these to recombine into 2 positrons and 1 electron ( a norma=
l
> > > > > > proton) rather than 2 electrons and 1 positrion (an anti-proton =
with a
> > > > > > negative charge). I would bet in accelerator experiments when la=
rge
> > > > > > amounts of energy are avaliable to generate new matter, that mos=
t of
> > > > > > that matter is in the form of normal matter instead of anti-matt=
er.
> > > > > > Just as in pair production, raw energy generates equal numbers o=
f
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -