sci.physics.particle

On Apr 2, 9:55=A0am, john wrote:
> 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://nobelpri=
ze.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.g=
ov/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?

Yes, though the word "decay" is quite common in physics usage and has
been for quite a while. It started with the discovering of
radioactivity, where both "decay" and "transmutation" were commonly
used.

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

That is because of a mental picture that you applied at YOUR whim,
based on trying to make it conform to your common and sensory
experience.

Part of the trick in physics is not to apply more of a mental picture
than what is warranted by what you actually KNOW from measurement.
This is harder than it sounds, but it is an essential skill.

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

Some models that treat it that way have been tried. While it is
qualitatively appealing, it is a quantitative failure, and there we
get back to the problem of forcing a mental image that carries baggage
that doesn't actually work. It's the "does it actually work?" question
that physicists ALWAYS include in their investigations. It marks the
difference between science and art. I know you're more interested in
the artistic aspects, but science requires more.

>
> Now change something to influence the node points
> and you get a different pattern. =A0A fluid-type structure
> made from circulation of the fluid in certain streams, I
> can see having different possible 'decay' products.

There is a difference in science between something being *conceivably
accommodated* by a model and something being *demanded* by a model. A
successive model makes a prediction by saying "If you look, you will
see precisely this and not something else." Note how different that is
from a model saying "Yeah, that could happen, I guess."

>
> 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