sci.physics.particle

On Mar 28, 11:17=A0pm, 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

Here is more recent evidence of a neutron or neutrino type aether.

Universe submerged in a sea of chilled neutrinos

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13414-universe-submerged-in-a-sea-of=
-chilled-neutrinos.html?feedId=3Donline-news_rss20

This was justified by studying the pattern of the cosmic background
radiation and concluding that neutrinos must make up a large fraction
of spce.

The concept of the chilled neutrinos is nearly identical to my idea of
the neutrinos conisting of postitron/electron pairs that have very
little instrinsic kinetic energy.