sci.physics.particle

On Apr 6, 12:24=A0am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Apr 2, 6:40=A0am, PD wrote:> On Mar 29, 1:1=
7=A0am, 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
>
> Yes, both sides of the story were presented, but the important fact
> was that they were both studying positron/electron reactions.

I'm not sure how you can gather that from Ting's case. The reacting
particles were protons. The created J particle decays 88% of the time
into hadrons and only 6% of the time into electrons and positrons. He
chose that rare decay channel because electrons and positrons are
easily identifiable in detectors and no other reason.

>
> > - 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.
>
> It seems quite clear that at the discovery of the J/psi, there was no
> theory that could account for it.

I'm sorry, you clearly don't have the history down here. You might
need to read something other than your coffee table book. Perhaps you
could read Ting's Nobel Lecture and Richter's Nobel lecture at the
site I gave you, for starters. Then I can point to more.

> It wasn't like they were looking for
> a particle predicted by the charmed quark. Rather it seems the J/Psi
> was shoehorned into fitting the quark model by arbitraily inventing
> another quark which had the characteristics needed to explain the J/
> Psi.

That is NOT what happened. Please do not reinvent history based on
your reading of a comic book version of the events that actually
transpired.

> Sure it fit a charmed quark, they made if fit - didn't they?? As
> I mentioned before the predicted and actual value for the mass of the
> naked charm particle was off by 4 percent. By most physics standards,
> this is a huge, huge miss - but not for quarks.

It's not a huge, huge miss when the laws of the interaction (here QCD)
are not well understood. This happens more frequently than you think.

>
> > - 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
>
> Thanks for the detailed reference, this is where I really count on
> your responses to bring me important information. I could find nothing
> on the decay modes.

Really? It's right there.

> From the list, it seems the J/Psi can decay into
> just about anything hadronic.

It does have a lot of hadronic decay modes, yes. Note all of them are
quite well measured.

> It's almost as if the decay is just
> another random positron/electron collision - and maybe it is.

Sorry, not random. And you'll note the *measured* rates of the decay
modes are quite different than those of other particles that decay
into electrons and positrons. Compare the decay modes with those of
the upsilon, the pi-zero, and the Z, for example.

> If my
> model is correct, then the J/Psi is just an electron/positron pair and
> the decay should produce results similar to any other electron/
> positron collision except with a limited amount of energy avaliable.
> Is this true or false?

It is false. You have the data. Please analyze them a little more
carefully.

> I would imagine it would be relatively rare for
> the J/Psi positron/electron pair to gain enough energy from the
> environment to actually separate instead of colliding, this explaining
> the relatively low percentage of observed positron/electron decays.

Please account for why it's 6%, then, and not 12% or 2%. (All of which
are relatively low percentages.) The quark model can do that -- tell
you without looking first that it's going to be 6%. Can your model?

> That this is a possible decay mode points strongly that the J/Psi is
> composed of only a positron and electron. If it weren't one would
> expect to see other decay products always in combination with
> positrons/electrons or multiple positron electrons, but we do see the
> singular positron/electron decay.
>
> > - 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.
>
> Here, the question of what causes mass is important. Science
> officially doesn't know what causes mass or predict the mass from
> first principles.

Ah but the quark model CAN tell you why the psi' and the psi'' have
higher masses, and it can also tell you why the upsilon has a higher
mass, and it gives a quite precise prediction of what the mass of the
Z is.

> An electron can be shown to gain in mass is passing
> through a region of high positive charges. It effectively gets
> stickier and therefore more massive. If the J/Psi is surrounded by a
> sea of positron/electron pairs, perhaps this makes it stickier as
> well. It is interesting that the required mass is only about 3 times
> the electron mass. It is not inconceivable that one might try to make
> a calculation to see if an electron in tight orbit around a limited
> number of positron/electron pairs would lead to a greater stickiness
> to the tune of 3 times sticker. If one could make such a calculation,
> this too would support a positron/electron aether hypothesis.
>
>
>
> > - 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.
>
> Yes, from the decay charts, it seems that practically everything
> ultimately decays into just positrons and electrons.

Not so. Neutral pions also decay into photons. Protons do not decay
into anything. Ever. Neutrinos do not decay into either electrons or
positrons.
Things do decay into the lightest products available to them through
the interactions they participate in. This does not mean, however,
that the daughter products are *contained in* the parents.

>The only
> exception is the proton as the only stable composite particle. There
> are also neutrino and gamma ray decay, but I consider these non-
> particle energy events.

Physicist completely disagree with your disregarding photons and
neutrinos as particles.

So let's review what you've done.
1. You've discounted 6 *measured* varieties of neutrinos as particles.
2. You've discounted photons as particles.
3. You've not worried too much about the fact that protons do not
decay.
4. You've then noticed that, aside from the above things that you
discount, most everything eventually decays into the lightest
particles available, which happens to be your favorites: electrons and
positrons.
5. You've then assumed that, ignoring those pesky exceptions you
disregard, if it decays into those things, then it must be made of
those things to begin with. (Without checking if there is anything
that doesn't work about that assumption.)
6. You've then further assumed that, if everything is made of
electrons and positrons, then everything must be based in the
electromagnetic interaction (and gravity). (Without checking if there
is anything that doesn't work about that presumption.)

I reiterate that the best thing for you to do is to read up, from
those who worried about these issues in the first place, on what makes
us think that the weak interaction is not just the electromagnetic
interaction in a different form, what makes us think the strong
interaction is not just the electromagnetic interaction in a different
form, and what makes us think that hadrons are not just made up of
various bound states of electrons and positrons. I will reiterate also
that scientists would LOVE for nature to be so simple as to be just
one kind of particle (and antiparticle) and one kind of interaction
and that it is the holy grail to simplify and not to complexify. But
there are *reasons* why we think it isn't quite as simple as electrons
and positrons and the electromagnetic interaction. You have not
plumbed at all what those reasons are.

>
> This brings me full circle back to my other post about where the
> missing antimatter went. Another poster had indicated that positron/
> electron collisions never produce a proton - this is clearly wrong

Yes, that is clearly wrong. Protons are produced at electron-positron
colliders all the time. Just not in isolation.

> since J/Psi can decay to a proton (decay 5 pg2) and in relatively
> great abundance at 1.69% of the decays. It is this proton which
> survives to make up our universe. From the decay chart, it can also be
> seen that the decay can never result in a singular antiproton.
> Whenever an antiproton is contained in the decay, a matching proton is
> also produced (decay 30 pg2 ) which are a tiny < 10-3% fraction of the
> decays. These will obviously end up annihilating each other. But
> protons can be produced singularly in the decay and can survive. Why
> has no one noticed this obvious asymmetry and the obvious conclusion
> over why matter dominates over antimatter? Even if you don't believe
> everything is only positron/electrons, the collider experiments
> clearly produce a matter over antimatter bias which explains why we
> only see matter in the universe. Is this not a significant and
> interesting find?
>
> But getting back to explaining the decay modes - that everything
> decays into positrons/electrons is very strong evidence in my mind
> that everything is made up of positrons/electrons. Can you give me any
> references of attempts to explain decays in terms of electron/
> positrons. That nobody has been able to explain it is no reason to
> believe it can't be done. I would say that we would need a much better
> understanding of the origins of mass and the conditions found in
> accelerator experiments so we can better separate artifacts of the
> experiment from real particle behavior before we can adequately
> explain what is going on with these decays.
>
> You didn't comment on my main point in this post which was it should
> be possible to directly detect the positron/electron aether by doing
> experiments like this. Maybe the evidence of the J/Psi isn't that
> strong, but could you think of experiments that would make a much
> stronger prediction and confirmation of a positron/electron sea? If
> this could be proven, it would surely be a Nobel prize to the
> discoverer of this massive amount of hidden matter which could easily
> account for mysteries such as dark matter. I would think the promise
> of such a discovery would have lots of people investigating this idea
> seriously. This idea of a positron/electron sea isn't mine -
> mainstream science speaks of all sorts of seas - most recently that of
> the Higgs particle - which could simply end up being the positron/
> electron particle that I speak of. This would be a particle hiding in
> clear sight.
>
> > PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -