The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Photon Theory of Matter  (Read 20163 times)

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #25 on: 05/10/2009 21:50:20 »
Quote from: Mr. Scientist
But the neutrino causes problems no?
Yes; a particle made of a photon trapped in a repeating pattern would have an electrical charge. Only by sandwiching the shells can we make a neutral particle.

I speculate that neutrinos might be spin polarized photons if they exist.

Yeh, polarization of photons is a common phenom. That's how your sunglasses work.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #26 on: 05/10/2009 23:55:07 »
It is also common that the plane of polarization spins perpendicular to the direction of travel. Such a spin in polarization might curtail interaction with other particles.

Just a guess; I really suspect that neutrino's might not exist at all.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2009 11:22:16 by Vern »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #27 on: 06/10/2009 20:41:01 »
Let's take a forensic look into the decay process of \gamma \gamma \righarrow -e +e, the process of two gamma photons creating an electron-positron pair.

We know two photons are enough for the production of two particles of mass, because according to E=Mc^2 (and also concerning conservation in neutral charges), two particles of mass (the electrons being considered) come together and release two photons with an added composite energy of 1022KeV. This energy scale at this magitude appears to be a cutoff where restless energy becomes heavy. Heavy in the sense of the academic term when considering particles with mass. But what is conserved?

Three main things are preserved:

Conservation of charge. The net charge before and after is zero.
Conservation of linear momentum and total energy. This means that you require the two photons you began with to be released in collision.
Conservation of angular momentum.

These indicate that ''properties'' or ''information'' about the photons are then stored within the intrinsic property of the electron and positron. They must contain the same information to transmutate back into the restless energy they once began. In this instance, there was no other primal particle other than radiation which would seem to give rise to every type of particle with mass other than the photon itself.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #28 on: 06/10/2009 21:34:29 »
I don't see anything to challenge in your last post. The information remains with each photon in their trapped state. The trapping mechanism is the charge itself plus the power of resonance as the photon completes its entrapment pattern in one wave length.

There are several different ways to view the pattern of entrapment. It seems that everyone except me sees the pattern take the shape of a toroid, twisting as it goes through the pattern. However, I have difficulty modelling the toroid while keeping the maths consistent. Even if we attribute half of the entrapment force to the magnetic plane and half to the electric, the resulting pattern is still a circle with a composite flat wise spin to form a sphere.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #29 on: 07/10/2009 21:58:26 »
Thank you, ttn, for your criticisms of that silly elementary wave theory.

Id like to throw a few things out there regarding quantum physics, though.

First, quantum mechanics isnt incompatible with relativity.  No matter or information is transmitted faster than the speed of light when a wave function collapses, even if two entangled particles are measured at events outside each others light cones.  No particle is transmitted between the events.  The system as a whole happens to be in one state or another, and as a whole is irreducible to the two separate particles.  Since the outcome of a measurement is random, theres no way to influence the outcome and use it as a sort of code to send information to the other measurer. 

Anyway, to use better jargon, local causation is still possible in theories.  Local hidden variable theories arent.  Non-local hidden variable theories would violate relativity, and are extremely speculative anyway because they assert the existence of unknown properties of a particle for which we have no way to test.  Quantum physics, with its random, non-deterministic results, and its relativistic with local causation version, quantum field theory, work just fine.

Another thing is that classical mechanics, on the observable scale, emerges from quantum mechanics, not the other way around.  Its extremely naive to try to interpret physical entities on a very small scale as being entities on the big scale but shrunk.  I think this is where people have the most trouble with quantum physics.  It doesnt look like what they see, so they reject it.  And the difficulty with which one pictures QM probably messes up some concepts in their heads.

A wave is something that propagates as a wave, can be built from sine/cosine functions, and experiences constructive/destructive interference.  The fundamental particles satisfy this.  They do, in fact, propagate as waves.  And they come in discrete packets of energy--that is, if you have a wave of electromagnetic radiation with frequency f, you can only have E, 2E, 3E, etc. as the energy of that wave.  Each packet of E in the wave is called a photon.  And the packets we observe in real life tend to be localized in space--something localized in space with a set energy.  Its convenient to think of it as a particle.  Though I should also say that since its localized in space, its really made up of waves of multiple frequencies.  But is still only a single packet/particle.  So rather than have a set energy, its A a wave with one such energy, B with another energy, etc., and has those probabilities of interacting with a charged particle as though it definitely had that energy.  And this is what theyre typically called: "particles".

On the large scale, we observe waves that are due to the dynamics of particles.  This is because the conditions needed to result in wave motion are extremely simple and general, and appear in many places throughout nature.  That doesnt mean the wave motion in quantum physics is due to smaller component particles, or ropes, or disturbances in an aether, or anything of the like.  For others here who are still attracted to fringe theories...
register registry

Linda I followed your eminent link. Although I'm not sure how how 'nipple cream' will affect my theories I'm an avid explorer of the unknown. It definitely sound as a 'hand on' experiment :) one might enjoy?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #30 on: 07/10/2009 22:25:57 »
Quote from: Linda_ol
First, quantum mechanics isnt incompatible with relativity.  No matter or information is transmitted faster than the speed of light when a wave function collapses, even if two entangled particles are measured at events outside each others light cones.
There is no evidence that entangled particles assume their measured state at the time of observation. That they do is only assumed because Quantum Physics predicts it and Quantum Physics is good at predicting other things. In the real world, entangled particles assume their reality state at the time of their creation. When the state is measured (observed) we can know what that state is.



Vern, what are you saying here? That entanglement exist, or not?
Entanglement is defined as a 'instant' connection breaking the law of lights speed in a vacuum. Alike our photons 'instant acceleration'. If it won't do that then it's no entanglement at all, and neither will it be a photon :)

http://calitreview.com/51

And if you found that one amazing try this one for size.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-entanglement

---

Although i don't agree to the conclusions of the IBM experiment Brian Clegg alludes to by writing " By interacting the particle with one half of an entangled pair, and then putting the other half of the pair through a special process, a bit like a logic gate in a computer, itís possible to make an identical particle at a remote location. We can only do this because the entanglement transfers the quantum information without us ever knowing what it was. In the process, the original particle loses its properties. Teleportation isnít copying, it effectively destroys the original."

That as they were using/providing information obeying speeds light in a vacuum by their manipulations of it to get their 'result'. And presuming that it is that experiment he refers to?

The other link though is mind boggling, and as I see it possible, quite impressive in fact.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2009 22:42:38 by yor_on »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #31 on: 07/10/2009 22:40:09 »
I don't see anything to challenge in your last post. The information remains with each photon in their trapped state. The trapping mechanism is the charge itself plus the power of resonance as the photon completes its entrapment pattern in one wave length.

There are several different ways to view the pattern of entrapment. It seems that everyone except me sees the pattern take the shape of a toroid, twisting as it goes through the pattern. However, I have difficulty modelling the toroid while keeping the maths consistent. Even if we attribute half of the entrapment force to the magnetic plane and half to the electric, the resulting pattern is still a circle with a composite flat wise spin to form a sphere.

Charge will have something to do with it. Charge is neutral for photon(s) until they come into contact within a reasonable energy-condition within spacetime. If a photon manifests a charge when transmutating into matter, then the mathematcs governing the charge will describe the fundamental change which makes photon changes into matter unique.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #32 on: 07/10/2009 23:12:12 »
My speculation is that charge is neutral for a photon as long as it moves in a straight line. Charge is neutral because each half cycle of the photon's electric and magnetic change exactly balances because they are exactly equal and opposite. However, when the path of the photon is bent by outside forces, the electric and magnetic fields that comprise the photon can not be symmetrical in the bent path. The area outside the bend is greater than the area inside the bend. The result is a residual electric charge. This residual charge acts upon the trajectory of the photon's path and forces additional bending of the path. The additional bending is just exactly equal to the original bending of the path.

We know this from measurements of starlight that is bent in the gravitational field of the sun. We can see this during a total eclipse. Eddington's measurements of this were controversial at the time that he made them, but they have since been verified many times.     

Edit: I know that the Fine Structure Constant is the ratio of the bend radius to the electric charge amplitude resulting from a photon's bent path. But I haven't figured out how to calculate the charge values at the surface of the nuclear shells based upon this. I can only calculate the charge values based upon the fairly gross Square-Of-The-Shells rule.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2009 23:23:06 by Vern »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #33 on: 08/10/2009 02:47:34 »
Quote from: yor_on
Vern, what are you saying here? That entanglement exist, or not?
Entanglement is defined as a 'instant' connection breaking the law of lights speed in a vacuum. Alike our photons 'instant acceleration'. If it won't do that then it's no entanglement at all, and neither will it be a photon :)
Entanglement exists. However, what does not exist is evidence that when we observe the state of entangled entities that the entities assume the observed state at the time of observation. There is no evidence that the entangled entities did not assume their observed state at the time of their creation and not at the time of their observation. :)

All of the links assume that the wave function collapses at the time of observation and that the states of the entangled entities happen at the time of observation, somehow caused by the observing process. However, this is all assumption. There is no evidence that this really happens. It is predicted by quantum theory. That is the only claim to reality that it has.

I have seen some experiments where they claim that they can alter the state of one of a pair of observables then instantaneously the other observable changes its state to that of the altered one. But in every event there is no real way to know that the observed state was not assumed at the creation time of the entity and not at the observed time. 
« Last Edit: 08/10/2009 03:20:12 by Vern »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #34 on: 08/10/2009 22:21:15 »
I believe you to be correct in that assumption. There is a clear difficulty in defining 'when' this entanglement defines itself, the only thing we can say experimentally is that they seems to be 'mirrored realities' when getting observed at least spin wise. But the idea behind entanglement is that the spin-states possible exist 'superimposed' on each other. It's also called super position and it goes back to the wave/particle duality. http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/quantum/

That is the background to why mainstream science assumes the wave only collapses into a definable state at the point of 'impact/observation' and it makes sense to me, even if it is indirect evidence. :)

It's about how you define reality. Myself I accept this definition, but that is me :)
And I'm quite weird ::))

( And as I say that no entanglement will be able to violate speeds light in a vacuum it's okay with me any which way:)
« Last Edit: 08/10/2009 23:45:54 by yor_on »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #35 on: 08/10/2009 23:39:55 »
I really suspect that the Quantum theory treatment of wave function collapse is based more on magic than reality. I know that there is some real value in that kind of analysis when dealing with microscopic particles, but it gets really weird when applied to the macroscopic world.

The thing I try to keep straight is that there is no evidence that wave function collapse even happens. The observed states could have been established at the time of the associated particles creation in every case. So I assume that is what happens and so avoid the magic.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #36 on: 08/10/2009 23:49:20 »
Ah Vern, to me that magic is there every day I wake up :)
The idea of us existing, consciousness and the improbability of it all just boggles my mind.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #37 on: 09/10/2009 00:39:46 »
Yes; consciousness and self awareness are things that I can't explain. We know that they exist because we experience it. But we don't know how far down the food chain they exist. Do ants experience self awareness for example. It would be difficult to select the amount of gray matter required for an entity to experience self awareness. What about trees? What about microscopic bugs ??

Much we don't know and probably will never know.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #38 on: 09/10/2009 01:12:15 »
Wasn't there someone on this site that had an example where there they amongst other techniques used mirrors to see if animals were self aware?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #39 on: 09/10/2009 11:46:30 »
I have seen studies where animals seem to know that they are looking at images of themselves in a mirror. I'm not sure that would be a good indicator for lower animals such as insects etc.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #40 on: 09/10/2009 11:55:21 »
I have seen studies where animals seem to know that they are looking at images of themselves in a mirror. I'm not sure that would be a good indicator for lower animals such as insects etc.


Yes - Dolphins, Elephants and apes all have the conscious ability to recognize themselves. As far as my studies where concerned, these are the only three animals in the kingdom other than humans with this ability.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #41 on: 10/10/2009 19:47:53 »
I just did a Google search for mirror test and came up with this Wikki. It seems there may be more animals that pass than once thought.

Quote from: the link
The mirror test is a measure of self-awareness developed by Gordon Gallup Jr. in 1970,[1][2] that was based in part on observations made by Charles Darwin.[3][4] While visiting a zoo, Darwin held a mirror up to an orangutan and recorded the animal's reaction, which included making a series of facial expressions. Darwin noted that the significance of these expressions was ambiguous, and could either signify that the primate was making expressions at what it perceived to be another animal, or it could be playing a sort of game with a new toy. There are nine species that pass the mirror test, including magpies and elephants but mostly primates. Most human babies do not pass the mirror test until several months of age.[3][4]

But I'm not sure how that relates to concepts that require the entire universe to be comprised only of electric and magnetic change and nothing else. :) :)
« Last Edit: 10/10/2009 19:50:32 by Vern »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #42 on: 10/10/2009 21:42:45 »
Quote from: yor_on
Although i don't agree to the conclusions of the IBM experiment Brian Clegg alludes to by writing " By interacting the particle with one half of an entangled pair, and then putting the other half of the pair through a special process, a bit like a logic gate in a computer, itís possible to make an identical particle at a remote location. We can only do this because the entanglement transfers the quantum information without us ever knowing what it was. In the process, the original particle loses its properties. Teleportation isnít copying, it effectively destroys the original."

That as they were using/providing information obeying speeds light in a vacuum by their manipulations of it to get their 'result'. And presuming that it is that experiment he refers to?
There are a lot of assumptions about entanglement transfers of quantum information without us ever knowing what it was. You could just as easily assume that the observed particles assumed their observed state at the time they were created. The fact that you must lose the original manipulated particles properties means that you can't know what those properties were.
 

Offline Homely Physicist

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #43 on: 15/10/2009 03:59:10 »
Essentially, are all forms of matter but differential types of trapped energy in the form of photons?

It seems no accident of nature to not assume that photons are the origin of all matter, with the discovery of the antiparticle. A particle when it comes in contact with its antiparticle it can transform back into massless radiation. In fact, all types of antiparticle-particle collisons ultimately resort their intrinsic proponents back to photon energy.

If all matter where to be forms of photon energy, (or trapped light), then it would mean that in the very beginning, the universe did not begin in a quark-soup of ionized particles, but rather an electromagnetic appearance of the fundamental unit of energy; in fact, a massive cloud of these particles would have been a major gravitational influence very early on in the universe, and it wouldn't be until after the inflationary phase of the universe would their gravitational influence be dilluted within the framework of spacetime.

What are peoples thoughts on a photon-only universe?

I've enjoyed reading many of the thoughts posted in this thread.

I don't believe in a photonic universe (yet). If the universe once consisted only of photons, matter and anti-matter would have been created in equal quantities. This is not what we observe.

Furthermore, the photonic model will be isomorphic (and the mathematics horrendous) to our existing picture and would make no new predictions without further addendum. The best it could hope for is that the new photon language might provide a different window through which some physics problems might be more easily solvable.
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #44 on: 15/10/2009 05:07:18 »
Your right, matter and anti-matter would have been created equally. So to make the theory work we need to explain why the Universe is made of matter. Since the energy of the proton is much higher than the electron we can assume that the protons and anti-protons would have been created first with the ensuing big annihilation. We would need about one proton out of every one billion annihilations to survive. Suppose that every once in while two anti-protons and one proton collide at exactly the same instant and annihilate leaving one proton still in the Universe. If this process stays slightly tilted in favor of protons then we have a Universe with lots of protons or conversely anti-protons. The big annihilation releases gamma rays that collide and produce electrons and anti-electrons that go through the same process. This would mean there could be four possible Universes. A Universe of protons and anti-electrons that would simply keep expanding and never form the Universe we know or one of anti-protons and electrons with the same result. A Universe of anti-protons and anti-electrons or one of protons and electrons either of which would produce the Universe we see today. Looking at it this way suggests that every Big Bang has a fifty fifty chance of producing life.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #45 on: 15/10/2009 11:41:08 »
Quote from: Homely Physicist
I don't believe in a photonic universe (yet). If the universe once consisted only of photons, matter and anti-matter would have been created in equal quantities. This is not what we observe.
This argument doesn't work. The problem of unequal distribution of matter and anti-matter is the same no matter how you view the make up of matter. We see the process of matter formation from gamma ray photons going on right now. Anti-matter forms and is annihilated.

Protons are made up of three shells. Two curl around to produce a positive charge and one curls around to produce a negative charge. The ratio is two to one. So you do not have an equal chance of matter anti-matter accumulation. Such a proton could take out an anti-matter electron and keep on chugging. I suspect it is just chance that matter dominated. It would be the same if anti-matter dominated IMHO. We could still exist and wonder why matter did not dominate. :)
« Last Edit: 15/10/2009 12:06:23 by Vern »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #46 on: 15/10/2009 11:57:36 »
Quote from: Ron Hughes
Since the energy of the proton is much higher than the electron we can assume that the protons and anti-protons would have been created first with the ensuing big annihilation.
You are assuming the Big Bang created the universe. When considering such a fundamental thing as the make up of matter I suspect we should cast out assumptions that rely upon magic and stick with things that do not rely upon magic.

We see the creation of unstable particles down stream of electron-positron collisions. Most are very unstable and re-assume their straight-line photon nature very rapidly. What was their nature when they were observed as a particle. The most obvious property they had was charge. What is charge and where does it come from? In a photon-only universe it comes from the bent path of a photon. A photon is  nothing more than a ripple of changing electric and magnetic potential amplitude moving through space. When it moves in a straight line, equal and opposite potential amplitudes cancel to neutral. When the path bends, the electric and magnetic fields cannot be symmetrical and so do not cancel to neutral. There is a residual charge resulting from the bent path.

The charge amplitude is related to the bend radius by the ratio of the Fine Structure Constant.

That is my speculation. It works for me.

As far as predictions that this concept will provide, consider what is impossible with this very restrictive view of the universe. There is a wealth of predictions. Just think !! There could be no gravitational singularities, so no Black Holes. Also there could not have been a Big Bang. Relativity phenomena is a direct result of this make up of matter, so no warped space and time. There are a gozillion others. It is mind boggling. Yet there has never been any experiment or observation that can rule out the photon-only universe concept.


Edit: Think about it. There are at least two dozen fundamental observables in nature that agree with the photon-only concept. There are absolutely zero observables that do not agree with it. And of course there only needs to be one observable that does not agree with it to trash it. So what are the odds. I make it out to be a few million to one in favour of the hypothesis just by the probability maths.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2009 12:38:18 by Vern »
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #47 on: 15/10/2009 16:34:53 »
I could have sworn that I was agreeing with your idea that the Universe started as photons. You are making the assumption that your design of the proton is correct and it could be but, to knock down the idea of someone else on the basis of your assumption seems a little unfair.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2009 16:39:56 by Ron Hughes »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #48 on: 15/10/2009 17:45:57 »
I could have sworn that I was agreeing with your idea that the Universe started as photons. You are making the assumption that your design of the proton is correct and it could be but, to knock down the idea of someone else on the basis of your assumption seems a little unfair.
I'm sorry; I didn't mean to knock your idea. I guess I didn't realize you were putting forth an idea. As far as I can tell your statement was correct. :)

I was trying to guess how the balance of matter and anti-matter creation would not accumulate equal quantities that continuously annihilate each other. If oppositely charged entities are made in pairs but accumulate in matter in three's the matter would contain an unequal amount of the entities that are made in pairs. And so I thought that maybe that could explain why continuous creation-annihilation didn't prevent the formation of the universe.

I was just guessing. The notion came to me while I was writing the post. The excitement of discovery set in I guess. :)   
 

Offline Homely Physicist

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #49 on: 15/10/2009 19:17:30 »
Protons are made up of three shells. Two curl around to produce a positive charge and one curls around to produce a negative charge. The ratio is two to one. So you do not have an equal chance of matter anti-matter accumulation. Such a proton could take out an anti-matter electron and keep on chugging. I suspect it is just chance that matter dominated. It would be the same if anti-matter dominated IMHO. We could still exist and wonder why matter did not dominate. :)

I agree with your statement regarding the ineffectiveness of changing our description of matter with respect to the problem of baryogenesis  :D See my third previous statement.

However, I believe this conjecture here is misplaced, or I'm interpreting your statements erroneously! Protons are made of three quarks: two up, one down. They're all 'matter'-type particles, not antimatter type. Yes, the down quark is negatively charged, but that doesn't matter: electrons are also negatively charged. I don't see how describing the structure of a proton as being made of 3 matter particles leads to the conclusion that one must have an imbalance of matter/antimatter accumulation in the early universe.

Futhermore, a proton cannot annihilate with a positron (an anti-electron) as they're both positively charged. The Coulomb force between them goes as 1/(r^2) and rises to +infinity as they get arbitrarily close.

There seems to be some confusion about the ratio, too. Although the particle ratio up:down is 2:1, the charge ratio is not. Up quarks have +2/3 units of charge; down quarks have -1/3. Positrons have +1. If you managed to pass on an infinite kinetic energy onto the positron and collide it with the proton, you'd get a particle with +2 charge. Again, I don't see why this leads to a necessary imbalance of matter vs. antimatter.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2009 19:44:02 by Homely Physicist »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Photon Theory of Matter
« Reply #49 on: 15/10/2009 19:17:30 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums