sci.physics.particle

On Apr 7, 1:24=A0am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Apr 6, 11:40 am, PD wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> > 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.

That's also published. It's called cross-section x branching ratio for
electron-positron collisions. If you go to http://pdg.lbl.gov and
start drilling back down, you will find lots and lots of references
for that.

> 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.

Of course, it's relevant when those other particles are *also*
produced in electron/positron collisions. That's precisely the point.

>
> > > 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

Again, what you suspect has nothing to do with what really happened,
as I've already demonstrated in at least a couple of cases. If this
does not give you pause in suspecting something before you've read up
on it, then I'm not about to ram it down your throat. If you want to
find out what really happened, start *reading*. I've given you a
number of online and book references. Not my job to spoon-feed it to
you here.

> 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.

Here you have a basic misunderstanding about how theoretical
prediction works. A theoretical prediction is not *fitting* a model to
data and concluding that, yes, the model *can be made* consistent with
the data. A theoretical prediction says, if you look in the data you
*will* see this relationship and no other. You are spending a great
deal of effort trying to find a way to make your model *accommodate*
what is seen in the data. The question is whether your model can say,
this is what *must* happen, not just what *can* happen.

>
> > > 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 bou=
nd
> > > > state. As well as the psi' (3689 MeV) and the psi'' (3770 MeV), ther=
e
> > > > are a whole raft of other bound states (also viewable athttp://pdg.l=
bl.gov/2007/listings/) that are *only* explainable by
> > > > combinations of two objects of mass about 1.5 MeV, and which are *no=
t*
> > > > explainable by a combinations of objects of mass 0.511 MeV. Here,
> > > > spectroscopy and in particular the ratios of the masses of these bou=
nd
> > > > 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,

But of course that is not the case. As I've said, it helps to *read*
what really happened, rather than just scraping 3 inches from the
surface with a trowel and *guessing*.

> 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 dec=
ay
> > > > 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?

It is for cars. To say that is also true for the microscopic world is
a grave mistake. The microscopic world is *nothing* like what we see
in everyday life -- that has been demonstrated hundreds of times in
experiment. Common sense is a notorious liar and a cheat in this
regard.

>
> > >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.

They are particles. They have spin, charge, parity, mass, deliver
momentum all at once, etc., just like electrons or protons or pions.

>
> > 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.

That is perhaps due to your vast ignorance of experimental data.
Things that have spin, momentum, energy, interaction strengths, and
other quantum numbers are particles. They behave like particles in
everything from the photoelectric effect to Geiger counters to liquid
argon sampling calorimeters to Cerenkov detectors. They cause
radiation damage in the same way as alphas, betas, and neutrons.

> Light does come out as
> quantized energy since it is generated as wave trains of specific
> energy content E =3D 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.

Sorry, if your presumption is that everything decays into electrons
and positrons, and there is an obvious case where that is not true,
then it is not worth investigating the theory further. This is how
theories get falsified. When a theory makes a prediction that is in
direct conflict with experiment, then the theory is WRONG. It doesn't
do any good to say, "OK, but aside from that, let's see if there's
anything else worthwhile about the theory." If the theory is WRONG,
then it is time to go back several steps and try again.

> 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.

I disagree. You have the stance that original is better than right. I
completely disagree.

>
> > 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.

Well, as I pointed out, J/psi's decay into quarks most of the time.

>
> > 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 have. Now I do expect you to take some time off from posting, find
the references I gave you, both online and in books, and do some
homework. I mean, serious homework.

> 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.

Of course.

> Although
> so far, I haven't seen anything to conclusively deny a world built of
> only positrons/electrons.

That is because you have not read enough.

> 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.

I completely understand, and believe me you are not the first to
propose this. In fact, doing a library search on THIS -- who has done
work on unification models based on electromagnetism, and then which
papers cite that work in their references? The latter will show how we
know this is not viable.

> 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.

In coffee-table books, I agree. No one publishes coffee-table books
for laymen about theories that didn't work out.
This is why you need to dive into the *real* literature, where
*everything* is published, including the serious attempts at making
something work that eventually turned out not to work out. It's there,
but you're going to have to learn how to research that in the library.

> 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.

Actually, it describes a whole lot more than beta decay.
You may want to look up "strange particle decays" and why the strange
particles were called strange in the first place. (And this preceded
quarks.)
Then you may want to look up Wu's parity violation experiment.
You may also want to look up the Yukawa potential and how different it
was from the electromagnetic potential, and why that was proposed in
the first place.
Then you may want to look up neutral currents.
Then you may want to look up the selection rules regarding isospin and
lepton number.
Then you may want to look up the GIM mechanism.
And it is not huge and ugly. It is actually very simple -- and more
importantly, it is JUST as simple as it needs to be to account for
what happens.

> 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.

Of course it does. Just not in coffee-table books. Stop digging with a
trowel and pick up a real shovel. And put your back into it!

>
> Furthermore, reading existing literature also only describes current
> dogma.

That is completely wrong. If you do your literature correctly, you
will find *everything*, including the attempts that did not work and
why they did not work. Just not in coffee-table books.

> I am generating new ideas which have never been addressed in
> the literature.

This is where you are flat wrong. I'm sorry to tell you this, but what
you suggest is not only not right, but not original.

> 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.

I have. And what I'm suggesting to you is to find out what is missing
in your list of ingredients that says why the strong force is called
the strong force and why it is just not another flavor of the
electromagnetic force. This work has been DONE.

>
> 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.

And for this you need to be able to really research literature the way
that is required.

>
> But> there are *reasons* why we think it isn't quite as simple as electron=
s
> > 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.