sci.physics.particle

On Apr 6, 11:40 am, PD wrote:
> On Apr 6, 12:24 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 6:40 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
>
> > 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.

I read the speech introduction which states:

"The unique thing about the J-y particle is that it does not belong to
any of the families as they were known before 1974. Further particles
have been discovered resembling the J-y one. The reappraisal of
particle family structures now required has already begun in terms of
a new dimension, corresponding to the new fourth quark already
suggested in other contexts."

Are you sure that it is not you who is mistaken about what came first,
the J/Psi or the charm particle. Ting and Richter as experimentalists
seemed baffled by their results and left it to the theories to figure
out how this new particle could possibly fit into the existing model.

>
> > 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.
>

Yes, I would imagine this happens quite a bit considering how much is
"not well understood". Just look at the mass predictions for the Higgs
particle. In my other post about the search the Higgs, just about any
high mass unidentified particle could be called the Higgs - or is that
another supersymettric particle, or just another unknown heavy
particle - who knows, there is no accuracy at all. I still don't see
how they could possibly separate these possibilites even if they found
new heavy particles.

>
>
> > > - 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.

I wasn't referring to comparing it to the decay modes of other known
particles. I was comparing it to the raw particle results you would
get from high energy positron/electron collisions. Such collisions
would generate all kinds of hadronic matter. I have been unable to
find a chart listing the percentage of all decays (on average) for a
high energy electron/positron collision stream. Just pick an energy
and then list out all the components of the hadron sprays observed by
percentage of occurance.

>
> > 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 don't have the data. I have data on the J/Psi, but I have nothing to
compare it for random positron/electron collisions which then go on to
decay in various modes. Comparing it to other particle decays is
irrelevant.

>
> > 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?
>
I'd be curious to see how the quark model manages to do that. Do you
have a reference? Although I largely suspect the theory was tuned to
match the experimental data rather than the theory predicting the
experimental data which existed well before the charmed model could be
firmed up. I largely suspect that whatever tricks the quark model uses
to make such predictions, they could also easily be applied to a
integer charge positron/electron model since the fractional charges
largely disappear by the time you get to anything which is observable
as decay products.

>
>
> > 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.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.
>
> > 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.
If all that is required to make these predictions are two similar
masses spinning around each other, there is nothing particularly quark
like in this arrangement. Could this not be accomplished by a positron/
electron pair if the mass descrepency could be figured out?

>
> > 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.
>
I don't know ... If I take 2 cars and smash them together and I see
glass, and steel come out, it is a pretty good bet that the cars were
made out of glass and steel - is this not common sense?

> >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.
Yes, but I have not discounted the action or existence of the
neutrinos.

> 2. You've discounted photons as particles.
Absolutely, positively! This is a major wrong turn in physics so far
as I can see. Of the experimental data showing the photon as a
particle, I find none of it convincing. Light does come out as
quantized energy since it is generated as wave trains of specific
energy content E = hf, where h is the energy contained in a single
cycle of light energy o ANY frequency.

> 3. You've not worried too much about the fact that protons do not
> decay.
Only to the point that this shows why matter dominates over antimatter
which was the initial motivator for this entire discussion - and you
still haven't commented on whether this is an interesting find or not.
It matters little about my present lack of knowledge in this area -
this is either interesting or is is not. I present a unique idea - its
stands on its own merit.

> 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.

A pretty significant observation in my mind. They don't decay into
quarks, they decay into positrons and electrons.

> 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.)
Given my limited resources and the fact that I do this for "fun", I
have tried to check as much as possible. I must rely on people far
more knowlegeable like yourself to give me hints as to where to check.
I do apprecate the time you take to give me these hinds. I do pursue
them as far as possible, but do expect me to question them. Although
so far, I haven't seen anything to conclusively deny a world built of
only positrons/electrons.
7
> 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 only do this to meet my desire to unify all forces and the
electromagnetic interaction looks like a good candidate. But if
everything really is based only upon positrons and electrons, then
every observable property of the universe should be derivable from
first principles upon the properties of positrons and electrons. And
since we know these particles exhibit the electromagnetic interaction,
then all forces must be ultimately based upon the electromagnetic
interaction. Once again, if you have anything obvious that doesn't
work under this presumption, I'd like to hear about it.

>
> 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,
I do understand the some of the histories, but the history is usually
lobsided because it presents only the history of the theories that
eventually go on to become dogma. So I won't see much about how people
struggled with integer charge positrons and electrons before
utlimately solving the problem with fractionally charged quarks.

In the case of the weak interaction, this is a hugely ugly mess of
quarks changing types, particles mysteriously appearing and
disappearing all in an attempt to describe the decay of a simple
neutron. During the time the weak interaction was invented, did anyone
seriously consider my proposal of an incoming neutrino adding a
positron/electron to the neutron? History does not say.

Furthermore, reading existing literature also only describes current
dogma. I am generating new ideas which have never been addressed in
the literature. I could read everything there is to know, and all I
would end up knowing is how the current dogma works, not why my new
idea wouldn't work. For that, I still must rely on the expert opinions
or scientists such as yourself who already have the benefit of the
current scientific thinking.

what makes us think the strong
> interaction is not just the electromagnetic interaction in a different
> form,

You should probably take a look at my web site that explains my atomic
model that does away with the strong interaction completely.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/frankhu/buildatm.htm

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.

I'd love it too, which is why I pursue it and find it interesting. I
really think that at some point, the wheels have left the track in
physics and we have prematurely discarded the "true" theory in favor
of far more complex theories. My attempt is to drag us back to those
decision points to see if they were ultimately waranted.


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.
>
I'm sure science has it's reasons, but while you see my ignorance a
hinderance, it can also sometimes be a benefit because those people
who go on to acomplish the impossible often do so because "they didn't
know it was impossible". Now you take the time to read my posts and I
would hope that one of the reasons that you do so is for the tiny
possibility that someone will show you something that you hadn't
thought of before or something that no one has thought of before - a
genuinely new idea. While much of my work is derived from other stuff
I've seen, there is much that is genuinely new and rather then
continually telling me to learn more about dogma, tell me if an idea
is new and where to specifically dig for information.

While digging for such information, I did run across a remarkable
graph showing the entire range particles detected across all energies
for positron/electron collisions.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2002/hadronicrpp_page6.pdf

If you remember, in a previous post, I had predicted that you should
see something very significant around the 1GeV range since this would
be the range where the positron/electron sea would reside. Looking at
the graph we indeed see an extremely unsual sharp peak where no peak
should exist at 1.022 GeV which has been assigned to the phi meson.
Now I'm sure there are all kinds of impressive arguments for the phi
meson, but there is no peak like it in the graph and matches with my
initial predictions prior to me finding this data.