sci.physics.particle

On Apr 2, 7:40 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
>
> - 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.
>
> - 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
>
> - The J/psi resonance at 3.1 MeV is not the only charm-anticharm bound
> state. As well as the psi' (3689 MeV) and the psi'' (3770 MeV), there
> are a whole raft of other bound states (also viewable athttp://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/listings/) that are *only* explainable by
> combinations of two objects of mass about 1.5 MeV, and which are *not*
> explainable by a combinations of objects of mass 0.511 MeV. Here,
> spectroscopy and in particular the ratios of the masses of these bound
> states are what's important.
>
> - In addition to this, there are numerous other resonances which decay
> into electrons and positrons: neutral pions, the upsilon, the Z. All
> of these have much different properties from the others, and none of
> them are explainable in terms of bound states of electrons and
> positrons, though an effort has been made.
>
> PD


Decay?

How does one thing 'decay' into another?
You mean transform?

That concept never makes sense for
me for a 'particle'- a particle always seems
like something solid.

Now perhaps that 'particle' is made of a fluid,
and that fluid is painting a pattern.

Now change something to influence the node points
and you get a different pattern. A fluid-type structure
made from circulation of the fluid in certain streams, I
can see having different possible 'decay' products.

Also, that means everything is malleable in this way.
Every particle is simply a pattern set up in a fluid
by certain constraints. Change these constraints, and
each can be a/some different particle(s).

Fluid? What fluid? I didn't say aether either.

John

John