sci.physics.particle

> > 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.

Actually, the reason why I ask you about this point is that you don't
have to believe my premise that everything is made out of positrons
and electrons. If the question is "where did the antimatter go", then
the answer is simply that if you look at what happens when you collide
electrons and positrons (fundamental matter and antimatter) together
in accelerator experiments, the only thing that survives are protons
and electrons which then go onto to form all visible mass. Now we
don't know why it is that the protons survive rather than the anti-
protons in the decays, but it seems clear from experiment and the
possible decay paths that the net result of energtic matter/antimatter
reactions is normal matter. This seems to be a fairly obvious result -
so no one should wonder what happened to all the antimatter. The
matter/antimatter reactions and decay paths are not symmetric. Is that
not significant?

By the way, just what is the obvious case that you think it is not
true that everything unstable eventually decays into positrons/
electrons or energy events like photons or neutrinos?

This has been a very excellent discussion and I will try to do some
more digging as you suggested.