Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: puppypower on 05/03/2021 13:26:00
-
If you look at fundamental particles; quarks, the electron is considered a separate particle. While the proton is composed of several particles. If you look closer, since electrons have mass and negative charge, but are only one particle, does that mean that negative charge can merge with mass to become one indistinguishable thing? If the electron was shown to be two particles, the conclusion would be different, more in line with traditions of charge being equal and opposite.
The implication is the electron is a one particle state of mass-negative charge. The electron cannot go the speed of light. The formation of a single mass-negative charge particle, will forever restrict negative charge to below the speed of light.
The positive charge of the proton is treated as separate from the mass, albeit forming a composite of particles. This means positive and negative are not equal in all respects, but are still opposite in the sense of mass able to form one particle with negative charge much easier.
One may say the positron is similar to the electron. However, the steady state of the universe shows that the negative charge-mass particle is way more stable, which is why it was left standing at almost 100%, even though the universe began as matter and anti-matter. While positive charge was also the main final product, forming a composite with larger mass. This would be easer to do, if they were slightly different from right from scratch.
The statistical approach, often used, bets on the long short. Even the worse horse wins sometimes, But the final data of every race; best overall record, is usually a better choice for betting. But for some reason physics prefers the long shot to perpetuate 1900's tradition, that is not consistent with 20th century experiments. The 20th century data show negative charge can exist with mass as one happy particle, that is so stable, the best accelerators and colliders cannot break it down any further. A positron can be broken down at room temperature.
Does that stability of the negative charge-mass particle; electron, imply that negative charge is the interface to mass and gravity, since they can behave as one highly stable particle by reinforcing each other through a common interface.
.
-
A positron can be broken down at room temperature.
Please tell us how.
You might care to study 20th century physics, particularly with regard to quarks, before talking nonsense about "preferring the long shot".
-
However, the steady state of the universe shows that the negative charge-mass particle is way more stable
No, it doesn't. Positrons are stable. There are no particles with a positive charge that are lighter than them, so conservation of charge means they can't decay into anything smaller.
A positron can be broken down at room temperature.
Broken down into what? Keep conservation of charge in mind when you give your answer.
-
A positron can be broken down at room temperature.
I think what you mean to say is that "A positron can annihilate with it's anti-particle, the electron."
- This produces two gamma rays
- As you say, negative electrons and positive protons dominate our universe (exactly why is one of the major unsolved problems in physics)
- So a positron is much more likely to encounter an electron (and annihilate) than a given electron is to encounter a positron (and annihilate)
- But, left to itself, a positron is stable
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation
The formation of a single mass-negative charge particle, will forever restrict negative charge to below the speed of light.
It hasn't necessarily always been thus.
- In some theories, during the electroweak epoch, the electron was massless.
- But after Electromagnetism separated from the Weak Nuclear Force, the electron had a non-zero mass.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_epoch
-
A positron can be broken down at room temperature.
Please tell us how.
You might care to study 20th century physics, particularly with regard to quarks, before talking nonsense about "preferring the long shot".
I was thinking in terms of the reversal of beta decay. In the forward reaction of beta decay, the "anti-matter" positron is formed from matter. This can occur at room temperature. The positron in this case was initially composed of bits and pieces of nucleus matter, before the decay into ant-matter plus matter.
If the reverse reaction cannot occur, does that imply that although matter can form anti-matter, as demonstrated by beta decay; lowering potential from matter to form matter and antimatter, this cannot reverse, but will be annihilated it if it tries to go backwards. Stabilized matter has to be the last man standing.
If we lived in an antimatter world, then if the negative and positive charges were equal and opposite, the theoretical anti or negative beta decay reaction would generate "matter" as electrons, and anti-matter to mirror beta decay. If we started with equal parts of energized matter and anti-matter, and neither beta decay or anti-beta decay can reverse, due to charge symmetry, the fact that the final universe shows the electron as the dominate single particle, with both charge and mass acting as one, does this mean the electron is more stable?
In our universe, the proton is very stable, but it is not a single particle, with the same charge-mass intimacy as the electron. This slight difference in charge-mass intimacy, may explain why positive charge ended up with the much larger mass, as matter and antimatter skinned down to just matter. This extra mass was needed to stabilize positive charge by forcing intimacy; needs more powerful gravity to say "I do".
In the end, the proton becomes more based on GR, due to its involvement with higher mass. While the electron is more based on SR, which may be part of equal and opposite. The lower mass of the electron allows for more velocity for any given energy input. Gravity generated pressure and temperatures, mostly acting on nuclei mass and the attached positive charge, can accelerate elections so its SR value increases; magnetic fields.
Particle accelerators and colliders, can break down protons to charge and mass particles but the electron is more stable and stays as one mass-charge thing at similar conditions. Protons are not fortified by SR; relativistic mass, as are the electrons. My guess is protons are fortified by higher gravity, which acts as the binder for charge. This cannot be simulated in any current particle accelerator. My guess is if we could use the high pressure matter phases at the center of the sun, as a collider target, protons would not break us as easy; different proton phase.
The reverse beta decay, that I was indirectly suggesting, if that had been easy and possible, it would have disproved my premise. This mistake on my part, was not by design, but was caused by going with a creative impulse, without much time available to think it through. However, this mistake did open up a back door, to the place I needed to be.
-
does this mean the electron is more stable?
No. Like I said, positrons can't be unstable because that would violate conservation of electric charge.
-
does that mean that negative charge can merge with mass to become one indistinguishable thing?
No.
If the electron was shown to be two particles,
OK, let's imagine that they are.
And then lets send a beam of electrons through an electric field.
The "mass" particles would have momentum but there would be no force acting on them (because they have no charge) so they would carry on in a straight line.
On the other hand, the "charge" particles would have a force on them because of the electric field, and they would have no mass to resist the change in momentum. Even the smallest field would impart an infinite acceleration and so the two types of particles would be separated.
Now, if you consider reality, there are lots of atoms and they have positively charged nuclei.
So, everywhere near an atom, there's an electric field.
So, if you were right about electrons being made of two parts, those parts would immediately separate as soon as the electron went anywhere near an atom.
Do you see how silly your idea is, and how easy it is to use science to reject the silly idea?
You too could learn science, and they you wouldn't post silly things like that.
Now, obviously, that would improve the forum.
So I wonder why you post nonsense.
Do you like being laughed at?
-
does this mean the electron is more stable?
No. Like I said, positrons can't be unstable because that would violate conservation of electric charge.
Quote from: puppypower on 05/03/2021 13:26:00
does that mean that negative charge can merge with mass to become one indistinguishable thing?
No.
Quote from: puppypower on 05/03/2021 13:26:00
If the electron was shown to be two particles,
OK, let's imagine that they are.
And then lets send a beam of electrons through an electric field.
The "mass" particles would have momentum but there would be no force acting on them (because they have no charge) so they would carry on in a straight line.
On the other hand, the "charge" particles would have a force on them because of the electric field, and they would have no mass to resist the change in momentum. Even the smallest field would impart an infinite acceleration and so the two types of particles would be separated.
Now, if you consider reality, there are lots of atoms and they have positively charged nuclei.
So, everywhere near an atom, there's an electric field.
So, if you were right about electrons being made of two parts, those parts would immediately separate as soon as the electron went anywhere near an atom.
Do you see how silly your idea is, and how easy it is to use science to reject the silly idea?
You too could learn science, and they you wouldn't post silly things like that.
Now, obviously, that would improve the forum.
So I wonder why you post nonsense.
Do you like being laughed at?
Let me answer first with a quote.
Protons and neutrons are made of quarks, but electrons aren't. As far as we can tell, quarks and electrons are fundamental particles, not built out of anything smaller. ... You can't have half a quark or one-third of an electron.
If an electron is considered a single particle and it has measurable mass and negative charge, there is an overlap in terms of charge and mass that is so intimate particle colluders cannot separate them. You cannot treat these as two particles, except as a simplifying assumption, since the mass and the negative charge have merged into a single particle state.
This is not the same with the proton, where positive charge can be isolated from the mass in particle colliders. It may take more energy than we are using, to separate the election into two things. However, that extra energy would only show the extra stability between negative charge and mass.
Since mass is connected to gravity, one might conclude negative charge and gravity are closer buddies than positive charge and gravity, since mass merges with negative charge. However, since the proton has higher mass it is more attracted by distant or bulk gravity. This breaks down as electrons are connected to SR and protons to GR. The uncertainty principle stems from two references; GR for the bulk atom mass; nucleus, SR for the electrons.
Mass cannot move at the speed of light according to SR. The intimate connection between charge and mass helps keeps charge below the speed of light. This allows inertial reference to appear and persist. Electrons can be in a difference references, than its nucleus, which is explained in relativistic quantum chemistry; uncertainty principle.
I mentioned beta decay, where positrons, which are considered anti-matter come from matter without a symmetrical production of an electron. Matter, able to produce anti-matter, is not the traditional way of looking at antimatter. However, beta decay makes matter and antimatter from matter; goes to different states of matter plus the positron. Electron states cannot do this. This could be due to being a single particle.
If we assume an antimatter world would be a mirror image to the matter world, the anti-matter version of beta decay, would produce matter; electron, and different states of anti-matter. Matter and antimatter are not as antagonistic as normally assumed. We tend to fixate on equal and opposite, and not cases were this is an observed asymmetry.
If we had a wide variety of asymmetrical matter and antimatter reactions, going on at the same time in the early universe, and the universe ends up with matter, it makes sense that matter was more stable at the phase conditions used by the early universe. Matter can still make antimatter at room temperature via beta decay, since matter is still at higher potential and the antimatter helps lowers the potential.
-
That's still wrong. Positrons are every bit as stable as electrons.
-
That's still wrong. Positrons are every bit as stable as electrons.
If positrons are really as stable as electrons, why aren't positrons a feature of everyday life.
I mean, why don't we power our electrical devices with positronic currents, instead of electrons.
Is this because electrons are solid reliable particles, which always exist to go through our everyday wires, whereas "positrons" are rarer products of nuclear experiments.
-
If positrons are really as stable as electrons, why aren't positrons a feature of everyday life.
That's a mystery that has yet to be solved.
I mean, why don't we power our electrical devices with positronic currents, instead of electrons.
That would require the device to be made of antimatter, which would be awfully inconvenient to produce (much less handle).
Is this because electrons are solid reliable particles, which always exist to go through our everyday wires, whereas "positrons" are rarer products of nuclear experiments.
Positrons are just as "solid" as electrons. I've already pointed out why they cannot decay.
-
You cannot treat these as two particles
So did you learn from what I told you or were you trolling when you cluttered the web page with this nonsense?
If the electron was shown to be two particles,
-
The understanding is that an electron is restricted to one charge at one voltage. From my perspective, the charge of an electron and its affinity is based on how far the rubber-band (bond) will stretch without breaking which allows for a measurement of motion or speed, assuming one would have a way to measure such a thing beyond what we can technically observe with our own eyes at this point in time.
-
If positrons are really as stable as electrons, why aren't positrons a feature of everyday life.
That's a mystery that has yet to be solved.
I mean, why don't we power our electrical devices with positronic currents, instead of electrons.
That would require the device to be made of antimatter, which would be awfully inconvenient to produce (much less handle).
Is this because electrons are solid reliable particles, which always exist to go through our everyday wires, whereas "positrons" are rarer products of nuclear experiments.
Positrons are just as "solid" as electrons. I've already pointed out why they cannot decay.
Wow
Thanks Kryptid for this excellent explanation.
I think that finally I understand the real problem of the missing antimatter in our Universe.
The idea is as follow:
Proton has a positive charge.
Electron has a negative charge.
Hence, One Proton + One electron = Hydrogen Atom.
However,
One Antiproton (negative charge) + one positron (positive charge) = Anti-Hydrogen atom.
So the mystery of the modern science is as follow:
If Protons had been created as a pair with Antiproton while electron had been created with its Positron pair, how could it be that our universe is full with Hydrogen Atoms but there are no Anti-Hydrogen Atoms?
In other words - The Universe is full with Protons and electrons, but there is no antiproton at all and almost no free positron
Is it correct?
-
If Protons had been created as a pair with Antiproton while electron had been created with its Positron pair, how could it be that our universe is full with Hydrogen Atoms but there are no Anti-Hydrogen Atoms?
That's currently a mystery.
-
If Protons had been created as a pair with Antiproton while electron had been created with its Positron pair, how could it be that our universe is full with Hydrogen Atoms but there are no Anti-Hydrogen Atoms?
That's currently a mystery.
Thanks
It seems that puppypower had already solved that mystery.
If you look at fundamental particles; quarks, the electron is considered a separate particle. While the proton is composed of several particles.
As proton is composed of several particles, it should be considered as molecule.
As there is no way in our Universe to create pair of molecule then there is no way to get a pair of proton + antiproton.
Therefore, there are no antiprotons or Anti-Hydrogen Atoms in our Universe.
So do you agree that the this mystery had been solved by puppypower' explanation.
-
So do you agree that the great mystery of the universe had been solved by puppypower' explanation.
No
Partly because Puppypower has no idea what he is on about but mostly because he hasn't solved anything.
Yes, the proton is composite- but not a molecule- that's just you trying to use "sciencey sounding words" .
The antiproton is also composite.
So, the problem of the fundamental particle pairs remains- the electron and positron and the proton and antiproton.
As there is no way in our Universe to get a pair of molecule
They aren't molecules.
That's the end of it.
-
It seems that puppypower had already solved that mystery.
No, he didn't.
As there is no way in our Universe to get a pair of molecule then there is no way to get a pair of proton + antiproton.
Wrong.
Therefore, there are no antiprotons or Anti-Hydrogen Atoms in our Universe.
Non-sequitur.
So do you agree that the this mystery had been solved by puppypower' explanation.
Nope.
-
there is no way to get a pair of proton + antiproton.
That's so wrong that the guys who actually did it got a Nobel prize.
"The antiproton was first experimentally confirmed in 1955 at the Bevatron particle accelerator by University of California, Berkeley physicists Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain, for which they were awarded the 1959 Nobel Prize in Physics. "
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiproton
Do you see how knowing science would stop you making stupid comments?
-
Yes, the proton is composite- but not a molecule- that's just you trying to use "sciencey sounding words" .
The antiproton is also composite.
Sorry, once you confirm that it is composite, then you can't use the following scenario for pair production:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson".
Only a Elementary particle could be created by tha pair production process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle
"In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a subatomic particle with no substructure, i.e. it is not composed of other particles."
So what is a proton?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
"Protons are spin fermions and are composed of three valence quarks,[11] making them baryons (a sub-type of hadrons). The two up quarks and one down quark of a proton are held together by the strong force, mediated by gluons"
Therefore, there is no way to get create a proton by the "normal" Pair_production process as any other Elementary particle.
Hence, the mystery is just located at the fatal mistake of our scientists that assume that proton is just one more elementary particle.
Once you eliminate that fatal mistake of our scientists you eliminate the mystery.
there is no way to get a pair of proton + antiproton.
That's so wrong that the guys who actually did it got a Nobel prize.
"The antiproton was first experimentally confirmed in 1955 at the Bevatron particle accelerator by University of California, Berkeley physicists Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain, for which they were awarded the 1959 Nobel Prize in Physics. "
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiproton
Do you see how knowing science would stop you making stupid comments?
Well, I don't claim that Antiproton can't be created.
I only claim that it can't be created as a pair production with a proton.
-
I only claim that it can't be created as a pair production with a proton.
But
(1) you don't know what you are talking about
(2) you are wrong
(3) pair production is the opposite of annihilation, so if one works, the other must.
And we know that annihilation works very well.
Do you see how knowing science would stop you making stupid comments?
-
I only claim that it can't be created as a pair production with a proton.
Well, you're wrong: https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/002/28002669.pdf
-
I only claim that it can't be created as a pair production with a proton.
Well, you're wrong: https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/002/28002669.pdf
In the article it is stated
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/002/28002669.pdf
"It is considered that proton and antiproton pair production in two photon collision is one of the simplest processes in the reaction of baryon production."
I wonder how can we even assume that proton and antiproton pair production could be created by two photon collision due to the relative mass between Proton to Photon.
We know that the proton mass =1.6726219 × 10^-27 kilograms
However, "According to electromagnetic theory, the rest mass of photon in free space is zero and also photon has non-zero rest mass, as well as wavelength-dependent. The very recent experiment revealed its non-zero value as 10^-54 Kg"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379719330943
Hence, the total mass of proton is higher by 1.6 10 ^ 27 than a photon
1.6726219 × 10^-27 Kg / 10^-54 Kg = 1.6 10 ^ 27
However, based on the data of pair production the energy/mass of the photon must be above the new created pair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
For pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the photon must be above a threshold of at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles,
So, how can we even believe that a collision between two photons with a "non-zero value as 10^-54 Kg" (each), could be converted to a pair of proton/antiproton with 1.6726219 × 10^-27 kilograms (each).
Is it real?
We all know that there are three quarks and gluons in a single proton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
"Protons are spin fermions and are composed of three valence quarks,[11] making them baryons (a sub-type of hadrons). The two up quarks and one down quark of a proton are held together by the strong force, mediated by gluons"
However, the total mass in those three quarks represents about 1% of the proton' mass, while the gluons contributes 99% of the proton' mass.
Hence, we can assume the mass/energy in those three quarks energy/mass is about 1.6 10^25 (1% of 1.6^10^27) than a photon.
Therefore, it is clear that this photon collision can't even create the mass in a single quark.
So, how can we believe in that imagination of creating protons pair from photon collision?
-
Have you ever heard of E=mc2?
-
Therefore, it is clear that this photon collision can't even create the mass in a single quark.
So, how can we believe in that imagination of creating protons pair from photon collision?
Because the alternative is to believe you, and you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
You are so poorly informed that you think it' you who is right, and the rest of the world that's mistaken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
-
The very recent experiment revealed (a photon's) non-zero value as 10^-54 Kg
The article states that this represents the effective mass of a photon when interacting with dispersive matter.
- When we talk about the zero rest mass of a photon, we mean a mass that could (in principle) be observed in a vacuum.
this photon collision can't even create the mass in a single quark.
Photons creating a single one of anything would violate a number of conservation laws.
That's why the process is called "pair production".
- Two uncharged photons can't produce one charged electron; but it can produce an electron and a positron (anti-electron)
So, how can we even believe that a collision between two photons ... could be converted to a pair of proton/antiproton with 1.6726219 × 10^-27 kilograms (each).
The same we can believe that a collision between two photons ... could be converted to a pair of electron/antielectron with 9.1093837015(28)×10−31 kilograms (each).
- In theory, the interactions in a Feynman diagram are reversible. But in practice, some interactions are much more likely than the other (a target with a larger cross-section).
- The mass-energy going in is equal to the mass-energy coming out.
- But because the proton is about 2000 times more massive than an electron, it takes photons around 2000 times more energetic to produce a proton/antiproton pair
- There are plenty of nuclear decay processes that produce gamma rays around 1 MeV, which could produce an electron/positron pair
- I am not aware of any natural processes we see on Earth that could produce gamma rays of this energy range
- it is extremely unlikely that two such gamma rays would meet up. Which is why pair production is most often seen in interactions of photons with matter (the matter helps with conservation of momentum)
- Although it is thought that such high energy levels would have been common in the early universe (and could theoretically be produced in a particle collider - especially if it were colliding protons and anti-protons!)
a
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
-
As kryptid was kind enough to point out.
This isn't a question.
It has been done.
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/002/28002669.pdf
The problem here is not science- which follows evidence, but Dave- who doesn't.
Is there a really good reason not to ban Dave in order to spot him polluting the site with nonsense (which the grown-ups then have to correct)?
-
Thanks evan_au
Do appreciate your answer.
The same we can believe that a collision between two photons ... could be converted to a pair of electron/antielectron with 9.1093837015(28)×10−31 kilograms (each).
Well, we all know that in order to covert photon energy into electron/positron pair we must use Gamma photon.
Therefore, it is very clear that the energy in that Gamma photon must be higher than the energy of the created particle (as electron/positron).
Do you have an idea how much higher?
Let's assume that it is n times higher.
Based on that, in order to convert a gamma photon to proton, then even if it carries 2000 Times the energy of a normal photon, it isn't good enough.
It must be at least n * 2000 times.
- But because the proton is about 2000 times more massive than an electron, it takes photons around 2000 times more energetic to produce a proton/antiproton pair
So, is it realistic that the photon which had been created by the Big Bang would carry so much energy just to be considered as Ultra high energetic gamma photon that is needed for the pair Proton creation?
What is the chance for that?
Please also be aware that in order to accomplish the pair proton/antiproton creation, the gamma photons must collide with each other.
So, what is the chance that those gamma photons would collide with each other while all the space of the universe is in process of ultra high expansion/inflation?
Therefore, only those photons with ultra high energetic that collide with each other might be converted to proton/antiproton
What is the chance for that activity?
After all of that we must reconsider the mystery of the missing antiproton.
Based on this theory, for any new created proton, there must be a new created antiproton.
So, where are all the missing antiprotons are hiding?
How can we accept the answer of: "we don't know".
Sorry, if we speak in the name of science, we must know.
It is not just a minor issue.
Actually as any Hydrogen Atom carries Proton, then where is all the missing Anti-hydrogen?
So, for any star or galaxy that we see in our universe there is a missing "antistar" or "antigalaxy" that had to be made out of antiprotons.
There must be some logic in the missing antiprotons.
They can't just hiding around the corner.
As there are almost no antiproton, then why can't we understand that the proton isn't created by a normal "pair particle creation" as it is a composite particle.
Why can't we assume that Only elementary particles as electron/positron can be created in that pair creation, while a composite particle must be created at a different way than this pair creation?
I would compare it to car creation as it is based on composite components/parts.
We don't just pull a trigger and get a new car.
This car must be assembled in the production line from many elementary components/parts.
In the same token, as proton is based on composite particles, we must understand how that proton could be assembled in the universe. Why can't we verify what kind of production line is needed for the creation of a proton or Hydrogen atom?
-
So, is it realistic that the photon which had been created by the Big Bang would carry so much energy just to be considered as Ultra high energetic gamma photon that is needed for the pair Proton creation?
Yes.
If you put the energy of the entire universe into a tiny space it will be very hot.
There will be lots of extremely high energy photons there.
No scientist would need to ask that question- because the answer is very obvious.
Let's assume that it is n times higher.
Why make assumptions?
We can do science.
And Evan did the work for you (It's a pity you didn't understand that).
But because the proton is about 2000 times more massive than an electron, it takes photons around 2000 times more energetic to produce a proton/antiproton pair
What is the chance for that activity?
It is a virtual certainty. There are huge numbers of high energy photons in a very small space.
Some of them are bound to collide.
How can we accept the answer of: "we don't know".
Because that is the answer supported by the evidence.
Sorry, if we speak in the name of science, we must know.
No
You really do not understand science.
It is full of things that we don't know (particularly "we don't know why...")
There must be some logic in the missing antiprotons.
Yes, and we are working on it.
If we did as you said and didn't face up to the fact that "we don't know" we couldn't hope to make progress, could we?
Why can't we assume that Only elementary particles as electron/positron can be created in that pair creation
because it would be absurd to assume something which we know is wrong.
We have seen pair production of proton/ antiproton pairs.
Do you really not understands that?
Why are you saying we should lie about it?
I would compare it to car creation as it is based on composite components/parts.
Nobody who understood any science would make that comparison.
Do you understand that a proton is made of quarks, but that it's essentially impossible to get a quark on its own?
Did you know that?
If you try to break a proton into individual quarks the extra energy you need to add to split them apart actually goes into making more of them.
It's weird, but that is what happens.
If you knew about the science you would know that.
-
How can we accept the answer of "we don't know"
Because we don't know.
Sorry, if we speak in the name of science, we must know.
Well, that's too bad, because we don't. Do you seriously think there shouldn't be any mysteries in science? Do you think we are supposed to make up answers when we don't have them? That's not how science works.
-
Aren't Quarks supposed to possess "fractional" electric charges - ie, 1/3, 2/3?
If so, what does this mean for the "electron".
As far as I understand modern physics, the "electron" is the fundamental unit of electric charge. And is a truly "point-like" particle. Which can't be "split" or divided into fractional components, such as "1/3rd of an electron"
But doesn't that fly against the idea that a quark can contain "1/3rd of an electric charge"?
-
How can we accept the answer of "we don't know"
Because we don't know.
Sorry, if we speak in the name of science, we must know.
Well, that's too bad, because we don't. Do you seriously think there shouldn't be any mysteries in science? Do you think we are supposed to make up answers when we don't have them? That's not how science works.
I thought that's exactly how Science works. When it doesn't know the answer, it makes up a theory. Sometimes the theory turns out to be correct. Other times, it doesn't.
But either way, isn't it better than saying "Well, I dunno"?
-
I thought that's exactly how Science works. When it doesn't know the answer, it makes up a theory. Sometimes the theory turns out to be correct. Other times, it doesn't.
But either way, isn't it better than saying "Well, I dunno"?
No
It's just a different way to say "I dunno"
-
When it doesn't know the answer, it makes up a theory.
No, it makes a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and is backed by evidence. Until you have the needed evidence to test the hypothesis, you are stuck at the "we don't know" stage.
Here's an example of a hypothesis regarding the missing antimatter: the Universe is infinite (or, at least, "sufficiently large"). Since any and all possible combination of events must occur somewhere in an infinite Universe, you end up with locations where matter and antimatter spontaneously sort themselves into different regions without annihilating with each other. Then you end up with a region that is matter-dominated and one that is antimatter dominated. If the size of this matter-dominated region is larger than the visible Universe, then you end up with a place that looks a lot like where we live. Now the problem: how do you test it? Until you can perform the needed experiment, this hypothesis is stuck at the "I don't know" stage.
-
How can we accept the answer of "we don't know"
Because we don't know.
Sorry, if we speak in the name of science, we must know.
Well, that's too bad, because we don't. Do you seriously think there shouldn't be any mysteries in science? Do you think we are supposed to make up answers when we don't have them? That's not how science works.
Well, do you confirm that based on the current understanding/theory for any new created proton there must be a new created antiproton?
If so, do you confirm that for any matter that we see in our universe there must be antimatter?
Do you confirm that for any Hydrogen atom there must be Anti-Hydrogen atom?
Therefore, for any Hydrogen atom there must be Anti-Hydrogen atom, for any star there must be anti-star that is made out of Anti hydrogen, for any BH there must be Anti-BH and for any Galaxy there must be Anti-galaxy.
So, do you confirm that for the same Universe that we see there must be Anti-universe that we don't see?
What about the Anti-dark energy and Anti-dark matter?
Here's an example of a hypothesis regarding the missing antimatter: the Universe is infinite (or, at least, "sufficiently large"). Since any and all possible combination of events must occur somewhere in an infinite Universe, you end up with locations where matter and antimatter spontaneously sort themselves into different regions without annihilating with each other. Then you end up with a region that is matter-dominated and one that is antimatter dominated. If the size of this matter-dominated region is larger than the visible Universe, then you end up with a place that looks a lot like where we live. Now the problem: how do you test it? Until you can perform the needed experiment, this hypothesis is stuck at the "I don't know" stage.
If I understand you correctly, you offer an idea that in our Infinite space there might be other observable Universe made out of antimatter.
However, in this case, we would need to explain why the matter had been separated from the antimatter and moved to absolutely different observable universe.
This is all about science.
A full set of Anti-Universe is missing! So, it is not just a small mystery that we can set under the carpet.
It is a fatal problem for the current mainstream theory.
Don't you agree that in real science we need to fit the theory to the observation?
However, when it comes to the BBT, our scientists insist to fit the theory to the observation and then claim that they "don't know".
Sorry - we all know.
There is almost no antiprotons/antimatter in our Universe. if we don't see antimatter in our universe then why can't we understand that this Antimatter had not been created?
Don't you agree that it is much easier to verify what kind of process could create a proton without antiproton instead of looking for those missing antiprotons at a different/anti observable universe?
As long as we claim that a proton must be created at that pair process with its anti-proton, it is our obligation to solve the missing anti-universe.
If we can't solve this key enigma - why don't we even consider a possibility that the current theory might be wrong?
-
Do you understand that a proton is made of quarks, but that it's essentially impossible to get a quark on its own?
Did you know that?
If you try to break a proton into individual quarks the extra energy you need to add to split them apart actually goes into making more of them.
It's weird, but that is what happens.
If you knew about the science you would know that.
Sorry - a proton is made out of three quarks and gluons as I have already explained:
We all know that there are three quarks and gluons in a single proton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
"Protons are spin fermions and are composed of three valence quarks,[11] making them baryons (a sub-type of hadrons). The two up quarks and one down quark of a proton are held together by the strong force, mediated by gluons"
However, the total mass in those three quarks represents about 1% of the proton' mass, while the gluons contributes 99% of the proton' mass.
So, about 99% of the energy/mass of the proton comes from that gluons.
Our scientists claim that the quarks are real particles however there is no particle that is called "gluons".
Hence, the gluons is actually only some sort of "Glue" that glues the three quarks together in order to form a proton.
I wonder if the name of gluons comes from "glues".
Therefore, as there is no way to create gluons and Anti-gluons by pair process, why can't we consider the possibility that it is also impossible to create Proton and antiproton by pair process.
If you still insist to hold that pair proton creation while we all know that it is a composite particle, why other composite particles can't be created by the same pair process?
For example, Hydrogen atom is a clear composite particle as it includes all the components of a protons plus single electron.
So, why the pair process couldn't create directly the Hydrogen/anti-hydrogen particles pair (that we call Atoms)
Why it can't create Gold/Anti-gold atoms?
In this case, the universe wouldn't have to wait for more than 300M years to get its first Hydrogen Atom and there is no need to bomb hydrogen star in order to get other atoms as gold and iron.
All the Atoms/antiatoms are there by this magic concept of pair process.
Hence, all we need is extra gamma energy and we have a clear confirmation for that:
Yes.
If you put the energy of the entire universe into a tiny space it will be very hot.
There will be lots of extremely high energy photons there.
So, why can't we assume that those gamma photons could carry 200,000 more energetic than a photon?
In this case they could create 100 times more energy/mass in a single proton.
As the total energy/mass in a single proton is very similar to Hydrogen atom then why by achieving 100 times more energy we can't get 100 times more energetic atoms from that pair process?
-
If you put the energy of the entire universe into a tiny space it will be very hot.
There will be lots of extremely high energy photons there.
No scientist would need to ask that question- because the answer is very obvious.
Well, if you put the energy of the entire universe into a tiny space it will be a Big.. SMBH.
No scientist would need to ask that question- because the answer is very obvious.
The Big Bang should end before it starts as a Big..SMBH.
Even at this moment you can't explain why the space of the Universe is expanding.
You take it for granted.
However, we know that there is no free lunch in our Universe.
If we want to create matter we need to invest energy.
In the same token - if we want to create space and even time we need to invest something.
Do you agree that we don't know what kind of investment is needed to create the space/time of our Universe and if it is feasible at all to create a space time out of nothing?
There are huge numbers of high energy photons in a very small space.
Some of them are bound to collide.
What do you mean by some?
The whole idea of the Big Bang is that the matter isn't moving in space but the space itself is moving.
Therefore, even if the space itself is moving at 3 billion times the speed of light, the photons don't get extra energy do to that activity. They are just moving at the normal velocity as any photon/gamma photon while the expanding space carries them at different directions at its ultra expanding speed..
Hence, what is the chance for them to collide with each other under this extreme condition?
Could it be that it is below 0.0...1%?
Hence somehow it seems that the whole BBT is based on a very low chance:
1. Low chance to get those ultra high energetic Gamma Photons
2. Low chance for them to collide with each other
3. Low chance to overcome the annihilation process after the pair creation
4. Low chance that the Anti-proton or anti-Universe is hiding somewhere.
5. Low chance that the infinite (or large) space-time of our Universe could be created out of nothing.
6. Low chance that the universe didn't end as a Big SMBH.
This is just a small list...
So, how can we base a real theory for our Universe on a long list of low chances (or we "don't know"?
-
Observations should drive science. Theories are often developed to solve mysteries that arise in science. One of those mysteries is the domination of matter over anti-matter.
Just because anti-matter can be produced under certain conditions does not mean accepted science is wrong. It is an observation that needs to be explained. Various theories have been developed to explain this.
All this is distinctly different to the questions arising from the conditions after the big bang.
-
Well, do you confirm that based on the current understanding/theory for any new created proton there must be a new created antiproton?
Probably, but there's at least one other hypothesis- that for some unknown reason, the symmetry is broken.
If so, do you confirm that for any matter that we see in our universe there must be antimatter?
Well, it could be, if it is outside our visible universe.
But that's never going to be observable, so it is not subject to scientific testing.
However, in this case, we would need to explain why the matter had been separated from the antimatter and moved to absolutely different observable universe.
No.
The whole point is that we don't need an explanation- it just happened by chance.
you end up with locations where matter and antimatter spontaneously sort themselves into different regions
It really would help if you paid attention.
-
If I understand you correctly, you offer an idea that in our Infinite space there might be other observable Universe made out of antimatter.
As is often the case, you do not understand.
Any such "other universe" is not observable.
I wonder if the name of gluons comes from "glues".
It does. Subatomic physicists are known for their odd sense of humour.
A full set of Anti-Universe is missing!
Or, more likely, it's just too far away for us to ever see it.
It is a fatal problem for the current mainstream theory.
No, not at all.
Don't you agree that in real science we need to fit the theory to the observation?
It does.
Your ideas, on the other hand, do not. I will come back to that.
Why it can't create Gold/Anti-gold atoms?
It could, but in those conditions the temperatures are so high that the gold nuclei would, in effect boil.
The atoms would be torn apart into their constituent protons and electrons.
It really was very hot back then.
That's yet another instance of you asking a question because you just don't understand the science.
Why don't you go and learn it?
Don't you agree that it is much easier to verify what kind of process could create a proton without antiproton
No, because charge conservation makes that impossible.
There is no such process. What do you think it means to "verify" something which can not exist?
As long as we claim that a proton must be created at that pair process with its anti-proton, it is our obligation to solve the missing anti-universe.
One explanation which a bright 7 year old might come up with is that the antimatter is simply too far away for us to see it.
Why can you not understand that idea?
If we can't solve this key enigma - why don't we even consider a possibility that the current theory might be wrong?
If you understood the theory, you would understand that it does resolve the enigma.
The problem is not that the theory is wrong.
The problem is that you do not understand.
So, why the pair process couldn't create directly the Hydrogen/anti-hydrogen particles pair
It does.
It has been seen to do so.
Here is the opening of the paper showing the details.
"Proton Antiproton Pair Production in
Two Photon Collisions
Hiroshi Hamasaki
Institute of Applied Physics,
University of Tsukuba
Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan
(VENUS collaboration)
Abstract
A measurement of the cross section for 77 -+ pp was made at
two-photon center-of-mass energies (W) between 2.2 and 3.4 GeV.
This results were obtained using e+
e~ —* e
+
e~pp events selected from
data samples for an integrated luminosity of lQO^pb"1
taken with the
VENUS detector at the TRISTAN.
There is a marked contrast in the angular distribution of the cross
section between at the high W range (2.2 < W < 2.5 GeV) and at
the low W range (2.5 < W < 3.0 GeV). The integrated cross section
(| cos0*| < 0.6) is in good agreement with previous measure"
Now, do you remember saying this?
Don't you agree that in real science we need to fit the theory to the observation?
Well, the observation is that we can produce proton antiproton pairs.
So you must adjust your theory to accept this fact.
-
However, we know that there is no free lunch in our Universe.
It's good to know that you accept this now.
It is the reason why your "theory D" was nonsense.
In science, we not only know that it is true, but we know why it is true.
It is a consequence of the symmetry of the universe with respect to time.
(essentially, because tomorrow looks pretty much the same as yesterday).
But that raises an interesting point.
At the moment of the start of the universe, there is no "yesterday"
So it figures that, at that moment, the symmetry is broken.
And that means that Noether's theorem can not be applied.
And that, in turn, means that we can create energy and/ or mass.
It's a "one time only deal", but at that instant, we can get a free lunch- as big a lunch as we like- the whole universe, in fact.
I feel sorry for you that you do not understand the beauty of that explanation.
As the total energy/mass in a single proton is very similar to Hydrogen atom then why by achieving 100 times more energy we can't get 100 times more energetic atoms from that pair process?
We could, but they would get torn apart.
The process is called "spallation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spallation#Nuclear_spallation
What do you mean by some?
I mean more than none, but not all.
That's what the word means.
Why did you ask?
, the photons don't get extra energy do to that activity.
Nobody said they did.
Hence, what is the chance for them to collide with each other under this extreme condition?
Very high.
Because there area huge number of them, in a very small space.
Surely you recognise that it is common sense that the tighter you pack them the more likely they are to hit.
Could it be that it is below 0.0...1%?
No.
That's like saying if you blindfolded all the drivers going round the Arc de Triomphe roundabout in the centre of Paris, none of them would bump into eachother.
It's just silly.
Hence somehow it seems that the whole BBT is based on a very low chance:
no.
You lied when you said that you knew about those probabilities.
Why do you not learn science?
Why do you lie?
-
Well, do you confirm that based on the current understanding/theory for any new created proton there must be a new created antiproton?
If so, do you confirm that for any matter that we see in our universe there must be antimatter?
Do you confirm that for any Hydrogen atom there must be Anti-Hydrogen atom?
Therefore, for any Hydrogen atom there must be Anti-Hydrogen atom, for any star there must be anti-star that is made out of Anti hydrogen, for any BH there must be Anti-BH and for any Galaxy there must be Anti-galaxy.
So, do you confirm that for the same Universe that we see there must be Anti-universe that we don't see?
Yes, that's why it's a mystery.
What about the Anti-dark energy and Anti-dark matter?
Dark energy isn't matter, so we wouldn't expect there to be an antimatter version of it. We also don't know if dark matter has an antimatter counterpart.
However, in this case, we would need to explain why the matter had been separated from the antimatter and moved to absolutely different observable universe.
My hypothesis said that it would have been pure chance. All the particles moved in just the right way to miss each other and move to different regions. It's absurdly improbable, but that doesn't matter in an infinite universe. Anything with a probability above 0 must occur in an infinite universe. By the way, I'm not advocating that the hypothesis I posted was correct. I was only using it as an example of an untested hypothesis.
Sorry - we all know.
No, we don't.
Don't you agree that it is much easier to verify what kind of process could create a proton without antiproton
Any such process would have to consistent with conservation laws.
If we can't solve this key enigma - why don't we even consider a possibility that the current theory might be wrong?
We can, when we find the evidence for it.
-
Here is the opening of the paper showing the details.
"Proton Antiproton Pair Production in
Two Photon Collisions
Hiroshi Hamasaki
Institute of Applied Physics,
University of Tsukuba
Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan
(VENUS collaboration)
Well, I also read that article:
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/002/28002669.pdf
I couldn't find there some answers to the following questions:
1. How they have overcome the proton/antiproton annihilation process.
It was just stated: "Contaminations from other processes such as pp production from beamgas and beam-wall and from single photon annihilation (ee —> pp) are considered to be very small and these contributions are neglected".
It seems that they care about the photon annihilation, but they don't care about the proton/antiproton annihilation.
They have decided to neglect the photon annihilation while in the same token they also ignore completely the probability for proton/antiproton annihilation at the same moment of their creation.
2. How the detector knows that it detects antiproton:
It is stated: " The variable W is the invariant mass of two charged particles which are assumed to be protons"
What does it mean: "assume to be proton". Does it mean that they assume that W means protons and therefore they have got the proton by W.
What about the antiproton assume?
3. How they have forced the antiproton to move directly to that "assumed" detector?
4.
Nuclear_spallation
You have offered the following article:
The process is called "spallation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spallation#Nuclear_spallation
It is stated:
"A particle beam consisting of protons at around 1 GeV are shot into a target consisting of mercury, tantalum, lead[1] or another heavy metal. The target nuclei are excited and upon deexcitation, 20 to 30 neutrons are expelled per nucleus. Although this is a far more expensive way of producing neutron beams than by a chain reaction of nuclear fission in a nuclear reactor,"
So, theoretically, if a proton/antiproton had been created why they could potentially start a chain reaction of nuclear fission?
5
Antimatter collision with real matter.
Do we have an idea what might be the outcome of a collision between antimatter to real matter?
If antiproton had been created at that lab, don't you agree that it could bomb the whole lab or the whole city in Japan?
How they could take so high risk in that experiment?
Sorry - that article is just nonsense.
I'm quite sure that no one from our "real science community" tried to do it again.
However, our science community are using that kind of nonsense just to prove that Proton/antiproton can be created from Photon.
Well, the observation is that we can produce proton antiproton pairs.
So you must adjust your theory to accept this fact.
The idea that we can produce Proton+Abtiproton in a lab doesn't mean that the Universe would use exactly the same scenario.
If it would, then we had to see equal no. of protons and antiprotons.
If we don't see it, then it is a solid prove that the universe works differently from that lab.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:46:45
So, why the pair process couldn't create directly the Hydrogen/anti-hydrogen particles pair
It does.
If it does, then why our scientists claim that it took the early universe 300MY to get the first hydrogen atom?
Well, the observation is that we can produce proton antiproton pairs.
So you must adjust your theory to accept this fact.
This is incorrect (I do not wish to use the word "lie"...)
The "observation" means what do we observe in our universe.
Mr Hiroshi Hamasaki tried to convert the energy of photon to Proton in his lab without any real science' control/verification.
How can you call this poor experiment as "Observation"?
The real observation tells us that there is no antimatter/antiproton in our Universe.
So you must adjust your theory to accept this fact.
Observations should drive science. Theories are often developed to solve mysteries that arise in science. One of those mysteries is the domination of matter over anti-matter.
There is no Mystery in our observation.
The Universe tells us that there is no Antimatter in it.
We can accept this observation or we can reject it.
I would like to tell you a story about similar Mystery of the missing seeds in the watermelon:
One day, the people of the city of Chelm have got a special delivery of watermelons without seeds.
They open the first one and surprisingly (for them) there were no seeds in that watermelon.
All the "Wise Men from Chelm" came to see this mystery: How could it be that a watermelon has no seeds?
One of them said that if the planet took all the seeds from one watermelon, then the other one must get the extra seeds.
Therefore, they open all the other watermelons in order to find the missing seeds without any success
Even at this moment they keep looking for the missing seeds…..
This brief story represents our current approach to real science.
Our scientists don't see any antimatter/antiprotons in our current Universe.
However, they have developed a theory of pair particle process and somehow our universe is not cooperative with this theory.
Therefore, they are very upset and call this missing antimatter as "mystery".
They don't care that this pair process doesn't aim for a composite particle. They also don't care that 99% of the proton mass/energy is based on gluons which is not particle at all.
However, as long as they would believe in their theory, our universe must do whatever they tell him to do.
If the universe doesn't obey to this will, they will look for other universe that meets the theory.
Therefore - while the current universe doesn't obey to our current BBT theory, we are looking today for other universe that meets our expectation for antimatter. So we are ready to change our current Universe with far away undetected universe just in order to keep our current theory alive.
In other words - we are ready to change our universe in order to find a fit to our theory, but we are not willing to change our theory in order to set a fit with our current Universe.
Just because anti-matter can be produced under certain conditions does not mean accepted science is wrong
We don't see antimatter while based on our theory it must be there. If still this moment we have no real answer why it is missing, then how could you claim that it doesn't mean that our theory is wrong?.
It is an observation that needs to be explained.
The observation is very clear. There are no antimatter in our universe. Various theories have been developed to explain this.
Why do we insist to explain the missing antimatter while we hold our current theory instead of looking for better theory that can explain that missing antimatter?
All this is distinctly different to the questions arising from the conditions after the big bang.
So, if the Universe tells us that it doesn't accept the BBT, why don't we look for better theory?
Are we waiting for god to come down and open the light for us?
Why this key contradiction in our observation is not good enough to eliminate the BBT?
At the moment of the start of the universe, there is no "yesterday"
So it figures that, at that moment, the symmetry is broken.
And that means that Noether's theorem can not be applied.
And that, in turn, means that we can create energy and/ or mass.
It's a "one time only deal", but at that instant, we can get a free lunch- as big a lunch as we like- the whole universe, in fact.
I feel sorry for you that you do not understand the beauty of that explanation.
I have no problem with this explanation.
This is your theory and you can set any sort of starting point including the idea of "we can get a free lunch- as big a lunch as we like- the whole universe".
However, once you have the energy you need to explain how it could evolve from that point of time by real science law.
Therefore, it is perfectly OK to claim that all the Universe energy had been delivered free of charge to a universe space at a size of proton. however, from this moment of time you need to explain why the Universe would expand its space.
So our scientists just focus on energy/mass. Not even a single explantion why a universe with a size of proton would expand itself by one picomillimeter. Don't forget that at the inflation process the Universe must expand at almost 30 Billion times the speed of light. Prove it please by real science.
Why a space would be increased at all?
Why don't you offer the mathematics for that?
What kind of energy is needed to increase the space of our universe (especially at that ultra high velocity at the inflation time)?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:52:16
Hence, what is the chance for them to collide with each other under this extreme condition?
Very high.
Because there area huge number of them, in a very small space.
Is it real?
At the inflation time the space had been increased at almost 50 times the speed of light.
So, even if there two photons that are moving at speed of light were in a process to collide with each other, the space increase would prevent the collision.
So, please - you can't just use the benefit of small space (based on the BBT theory) while you totally ignore the impact of that extreme expansion velocity.
My hypothesis said that it would have been pure chance. All the particles moved in just the right way to miss each other and move to different regions. It's absurdly improbable, but that doesn't matter in an infinite universe. Anything with a probability above 0 must occur in an infinite universe. By the way, I'm not advocating that the hypothesis I posted was correct. I was only using it as an example of an untested hypothesis
Well, it seems that we always prefer the "chance" that supports the BBT.
When it comes to the chance for a photons to collide with each other as the early Universe is expanding much faster than the speed of light - we are sure that the chance is high just in order to support the BBT.
Now when it comes to the idea that the Antimatter shouldn't collide with the existing matter in our current universe then the chance for that is very low - in order to support other request of the BBT.
Sorry - the chance for the energetic photons to collide with each other must be identical to the proton/antiproton to collide with each other
Please chose the chance as you wish – but please don't change it according to your request..
They both are located at the same universe.
So, if the proton could move to different aria without colliding with antiprotons, then also the energetic photon should move to different aria without colliding with each other.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:25:41
Don't you agree that it is much easier to verify what kind of process could create a proton without antiproton
Any such process would have to consistent with conservation laws.
I fully agree with that.
So, please let's try to find a process that consistent with conservation laws which could work and explain how particles could be created without antiparticle.
Please remember that proton is a composite particle while gluons isn't particle at all.
Only quark represents a single real particle.
Therefore, each quark could be created by that pair particle process.
However, as there is no antiparticle in our Universe, it tells us that the pair process isn't applicable for the proton creation process.
Hence, somehow the three new created quarks of the proton must get the extra gluons in order to be converted to proton.
In this case, the proton could be created without antiproton and still be consistent with conservation laws
It seems to me that the gluons represents electromagnetic energy that is locked by the three quarks.
So, we must find the process that can add the gluons (or EM energy if you wish) to the three quarks in order to accomplish the mission of creating protons without antiprotons while it consistent with conservation laws
-
The electron, in particle accelerator data, was found to be a single particle composed of negative charge and mass. The mass and negative charge are so merged as to be consider one thing. This, logically, reflects a state of gravity and negative charge that is unified even at accelerator conditions. The electron obeys unified laws of gravity and negative charge. The proton is made of more than one particle and positive charge is not quite as unified to mass. It can associate as one thing; proton under extreme conditions, but not all conditions.
If you look at the EM force, the negatively changed single particle electron is better designed to take advantage of the magnetic side of the EM force, due to its never ending hustle. A charge in motion creates a magnetic field, while an electron is always in motion, allowing negative charge to overcome even negative charge repulsion, without any additional force. The proton's positive charge repulsion needs the nuclear force, since it magnetism is not enough. Negative charge is more self contained as the electron.
For example, the oxygen atom can form oxide or O-2. The oxygen atom can hold two extra negative charges, beyond its number of nucleus positive charges. The electrons and negative charges overcome this change imbalance and negative charge electrostatic repulsion by being always in motion. The motion of the electron in the p-orbitals of oxygen, generates an extra magnetic component, that can overcome the charge repulsion. Mineral oxides can withstand extreme heat and O-2 remains very stable.
Originally, electricity was assumed to be due to the movement of positive charge. When the electron was discovered, this was corrected and electricity was defined as movement of negative charge. These two traditions created a relative reference compromise, since positive charge to the left creates the same affects as negative charge to the right.
The electrons in motion, around the oxygen nucleus, simulates positive charge and negative charge so they appear to charge cancel; opposite motions. This is due to the unity of the EM force. Protons and positive charge do not do this in chemistry, since positive and negative charges are not the same. The extra perpetual motion of the single particle electron, makes this possible, since its motion implies a better integration of magnetism, negative charge and mass. This is super stable even if the most extreme accelerator conditions,
The finish up question is, why is the electron always in motion? My guess is this is connected to its unity of magnetism, negative charge, mass. This unity implies the need for motion. This motion is also very fast and makes another connection; special relativity. Special relativity can increase the relativistic mass and tweak the unified force it displays in space-time. The proton is more GR based. One result is the uncertainty displayed by electrons, due to it being in another state; unified, mass, charge and magnetic state within a perpetual low level SR reference.
-
Well, I also read that article:
It's a pity that you don't seem to have understood it.
1. How they have overcome the proton/antiproton annihilation process.
There's nothing to overcome.
3. How they have forced the antiproton to move directly to that "assumed" detector?
You have deluded yourself into thinking that they did this.
But actually, they id not, so teh question of "how" does not arise.
Like I said, you may have read it, but you didn't understand it.
You should learn some physics.
So, theoretically, if a proton/antiproton had been created why they could potentially start a chain reaction of nuclear fission?
They couldn't.
And they said that they didn't.
It's just that, once again, you did not understand it.
They said
" The target nuclei are excited and upon deexcitation, 20 to 30 neutrons are expelled per nucleus. Although this is a far more expensive way of producing neutron beams than by a chain reaction of nuclear fission in a nuclear reactor, "
Since they say that the spallation method is more expensive than a fission chain in a reactor, it is clear that the spallation method is different from that fission chain.
And, anyway, to get chain reaction, you need something fissionable like uranium.
Do we have an idea what might be the outcome of a collision between antimatter to real matter?
Yes.
We have a lot of detailed experimental information about it.
If you took the time to learn science, rather than posting nonsense, you would know that.
If antiproton had been created at that lab, don't you agree that it could bomb the whole lab or the whole city in Japan?
Of course I don't agree.
That's just silly.
You seem to think that antimatter is magic.
It isn't.
Even high school science (like the conservation of energy) would show that, because they only put in as much energy as they paid for in their electricity bill, they could not get more energy out to destroy a city.
You would know that if you had any understanding of science.
How they could take so high risk in that experiment?
There was no risk.
Sorry - that article is just nonsense.
No, as usual, your misunderstandings of science is nonsense.
I'm quite sure that no one from our "real science community" tried to do it again.
You are sure of many things, but you are seldom correct.
However, our science community are using that kind of nonsense just to prove that Proton/antiproton can be created from Photon.
You have not even begun to show that it is nonsense.
All you have done is show that your understanding of antimatter seems to come from watching mad sci fi.
The idea that we can produce Proton+Abtiproton in a lab doesn't mean that the Universe would use exactly the same scenario.
True, but stupid, because nobody said it had to.
However, because we can make antimatter from high energy photons, there is nothing to stop the universe doing it.
If it would, then we had to see equal no. of protons and antiprotons.
Only if the antiprotons were near enough for us to see them.
If they are not within the visible universe then - obviously, we will not see them.
If we don't see it, then it is a solid prove that the universe works differently from that lab.
No more so than the idea that a single mother is proof of virgin birth.
We know there was a father, he's just not there any more.
If it does, then why our scientists claim that it took the early universe 300MY to get the first hydrogen atom?
Because scientists understand science.
In particular, they know the difference between an atom, and a nucleus.
If you knew some science, you wouldn't have asked that.
Why don't you learn science?
How can you call this poor experiment as "Observation"?
Since you did not understand teh expoeriment, you can not be taken seriously when you describe it as poor.
On the other hand, the report went through peer review which shows that it was not poor.
The problem is not with the experiment, but with you.
If you knew some science, you would have known that.
Why don't you learn science?
This is incorrect (
In reality, it is correct.
If you knew some science, you wouldn't have said that.
Why don't you learn science?
The real observation tells us that there is no antimatter/antiproton in our Universe.
Well, that's what you say.
But everyone who knows about science disagrees with you.
If you knew some science, you wouldn't have posted that.
Why don't you learn science?
So you must adjust your theory to accept this fact.
Your uneducated opinion is not a fact, is it?
The Universe tells us that there is no Antimatter in it.
We can accept this observation or we can reject it.
Antimatter actually exists.
We do not have to "accept" something which is untrue, do we?
This brief story represents our current approach to real science.
No.
If it said "the seeds must be in watermelons in another country which we can not look at; so there is no point looking here", that would be a better representation.
And that's why the rest of your comments on the matter are nonsense.
We don't see antimatter while based on our theory it must be there. If still this moment we have no real answer why it is missing, then how could you claim that it doesn't mean that our theory is wrong?.
As I said, a child would work out the answer.
The antimatter must be somewhere else- somewhere too far away for us to see it.
Why can't you grasp this idea?
Why do we insist to explain the missing antimatter while we hold our current theory instead of looking for better theory that can explain that missing antimatter?
Because the theory is based on maths, and the maths can be (and has been) prove to be correct. So the theory must be correct.
So the antimatter must be somewhere.
Since the idea that "it's somewhere else" isn't actually a problem, that's one reasonable basis to move forward. (there are other possible explanations).
So, if the Universe tells us that it doesn't accept the BBT, why don't we look for better theory?
The universe didn't tell us that.
It's just that, no matter what the universe tells us, you don't listen or you don't understand because you lack the grounding in science.
Why don't you learn science?
Why this key contradiction in our observation is not good enough to eliminate the BBT?
Because the idea that it is a contradiction is a figment of your uninformed imagination.
This is your theory
It's Noether's theory; and has been proven right.
So everything you said about it is nonsense.
Why not save yourself the trouble and embarrassment of writing nonsense by learning some science?
Prove it please by real science.
The evidence is literally everywhere.
It's a pity you can't understand it.
Why don't you learn the science?
Is it real?
Yes; otherwise I'd not have said it.
At the inflation time the space had been increased at almost 50 times the speed of light.
So, even if there two photons that are moving at speed of light were in a process to collide with each other, the space increase would prevent the collision.
The universe is still expanding, this does not stop cars hitting each other.
Nor would the expanding universe "prevent the collision"; that's just tosh you made up.
Well, it seems that we always prefer the "chance" that supports the BBT.
No.
We prefer what the evidence shows.
And since that shows that we are here, we prefer the version that leads to something, rathe than nothing.
Now when it comes to the idea that the Antimatter shouldn't collide with the existing matter in our current universe then the chance for that is very low - in order to support other request of the BBT.
That's just not true, is it? We know that the chance of an matter antimatter collision is very high.
It doesn't cause a problem wit the BBT.
It's just that you refuse to learn about the BBT, so you don't understand this.
Please chose the chance as you wish – but please don't change it according to your request..
Nobody did.
You made that bit up.
So, please let's try to find a process that consistent with conservation laws which could work and explain how particles could be created without antiparticle.
Do you realise what you said there?
You said that we know that adding 1 to minus 1 gives zero, but we must fins a way that is consistent with that where adding 1 to minus 1 does not give zero.
Do you not see how that is impossible?
Perhaps you should learn some science.
Therefore, each quark could be created by that pair particle process.
No.
However, as there is no antiparticle in our Universe, it tells us that the pair process isn't applicable for the proton creation process.
No, it doesn't.
-
If antiproton had been created at that lab, don't you agree that it could bomb the whole lab or the whole city in Japan?
You might want to rethink that while taking conservation of energy into consideration.
-
If antiproton had been created at that lab, don't you agree that it could bomb the whole lab or the whole city in Japan?
You might want to rethink that while taking conservation of energy into consideration.
Well, I hope that you agree that if we set proton at absolutely close to antiproton (or collide with each other), they both should be annihilated and therefore there must be lost of mass/energy.
Therefore, due to this annihilation process and while taking conservation of energy into consideration, don't you agree that this lost of mass/energy must be transformed into some heat energy?
However, with regards to that Annihilation process.
Based on that article it is very clear that Mr. Hiroshi Hamasaki didn't do any activity to prevent from the new created proton/antiproton (that had been created due to the Gamma collision) to be Annihilated at the same moment of their creation.
So, even if the idea of creating proton/antiproton by gamma collision is correct, how those new created proton/antiproton could overcome the Annihilation process without any external forces?
-
Dear puppypower
Thanks for your interesting explanation.
The electron, in particle accelerator data, was found to be a single particle composed of negative charge and mass.
The finish up question is, why is the electron always in motion? My guess is this is connected to its unity of magnetism, negative charge, mass.
Please let me know if you agree with the following:
We can find Electrons in photons or in Atoms:
When Electron paired with Positron they set a photon which always move at the speed of light.
When Electron is paired with Proton is sets Hydrogen Atom. However, as the mass of the Proton is significantly higher than the mass of the electron, then the electron must orbit around the Proton at the speed of light.
Therefore - do you agree that electron is "born to run" always in the speed of light.
With regards to positron
In any photon there is Electron + Positron.
In any atom there is Electron + Proton.
Hence, there must be less positrons than electrons in our Universe.
Therefore, when our scientists claim that there is more matter that antimatter, they actually don't tell us the whole story.
They must tell us that there are more protons than antiprotons and there are more Electrons than Positrons.
So, let's see if I understand correctly the matter creation:
1. Big Bang - Unlimited Energy, free of charge + New space
2. The energy is transformed into photons and gamma photons.
3. The Gamma photons collide with each other. New proton/antiproton and Electron/positron are created due to those collisions. However, do we know what is the chance for the proton/antiproton pair v.s electron/positron pair? If they are not equally, than less atoms would be created.?
4 When the proton combined with the electron they are converted to Hydrogen Atom. However, what kind of force is needed to combine them together?
5. Therefore the left over are antiprotons and positrons.
So, the problem is not just that there are missing antiprotons, but also where are all the other missing positrons?
-
Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/03/2021 11:25:54
At the inflation time the space had been increased at almost 50 times the speed of light.
So, even if there two photons that are moving at speed of light were in a process to collide with each other, the space increase would prevent the collision.
The universe is still expanding, this does not stop cars hitting each other.
Is it real
if two cars are moving directly to each other at 100 Km/h while we expand the space between them at 1000K/h, how they could collide with each other?
Therefore, if the space is expanding much faster than the speed of light, how any two gamma photons could with each other?
Your answer shows that you really don't care about real science.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/03/2021 11:25:54
Why do we insist to explain the missing antimatter while we hold our current theory instead of looking for better theory that can explain that missing antimatter?
Because the theory is based on maths, and the maths can be (and has been) prove to be correct. So the theory must be correct.
So the antimatter must be somewhere.
Since the idea that "it's somewhere else" isn't actually a problem, that's one reasonable basis to move forward. (there are other possible explanations).
Well, if our scientists assume that the antimatter had drifted to other part of the Universe, then they have to explain the source of this separation.
You claim that we have the math, so please introduce the math for that activity.
There is even one more key issue.
We can observe galaxies at a distance of 13.3 Bly.
Up to that radius we do not observe any sort of Antimatter.
So, don't you agree that if the antimatter was real, we had to observe it at least over there?
Krypid had mentioned that in order to justify the idea of antimatter our Universe might be infinite.
I wonder how could it be that a universe in a size of proton could be converted to Infinite in only 13.8 By.
You claim that the Math supports your understanding.
So, based on your math, what is the maximal size that our Universe could be after 13.8BY?
-
Well, I hope that you agree that if we set proton at absolutely close to antiproton (or collide with each other), they both should be annihilated and therefore there must be lost of mass/energy.
Well, there's a loss of mass and a production of energy.
Mass/ energy remains conserved.
Therefore, due to this annihilation process and while taking conservation of energy into consideration, don't you agree that this lost of mass/energy must be transformed into some heat energy?
Yes, but not much
About 0.000000000298484 Joules.
And you thought this was going to destroy a city.
Why don't you just admit that you really have no clue?
So, even if the idea of creating proton/antiproton by gamma collision is correct,
Why are you saying "if", when we know that it's true?
how those new created proton/antiproton could overcome the Annihilation process without any external forces?
Luck.
-
It two cars are moving directly to each other at 100 Km/h while we expand the space between them at 1000K/h, how they collide with each other?
But cars don't do that, do they?
So your "argument" is just silly.
It's like saying that a north bound car moving away from a south bound car will not hit it, so collisions are all impossible.
You will need to do better than that.
-
hen they have to explain the source of this separation.
Chance.
Luck.
Coincidence.
We don't need to explain anything. that's just tosh you made up.
You claim that we have the math, so please introduce the math for that activity.
It's not a "claim"; it is an observation.
We do have the maths.
Here's a copy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
However, it's the maths that does what I said it did.
It isn't the maths that, for example, lets you calculate how much tax you pay.
That's different.
So it's just as stupid to say this
You claim that we have the math, so please introduce the math for that activity.
As it would be to try to use relativity to balance your cheque book.
Why did you pretend that I had said that we had maths that explained the distribution of antimatter in the universe.
Where did you think I say that?
I didn't say it, did I- you are just not understanding, or not telling the truth.
Which is it?
Are you a fool, or a liar?
-
Why are we turning this into yet another thread where Dave attacks the Big Bang theory via misunderstandings? Let's keep the posts about the original topic, please.
-
Why are we turning this into yet another thread where Dave attacks the Big Bang theory via misunderstandings? Let's keep the posts about the original topic, please.
If I understand it correctly, this tread is all about positive and negative particle charged or matter and antimatter.
So, with or without the BBT, we should verify the real meaning of the missing antimatter (as antiproton and positron) in our Universe.
Therefore in this tread I focus on the real meaning of the missing Antimatter in our Universe.
If you wish, we can continue the discussion in the other thread.
However, if you agree that as long as we focus on the matter/antimatter it's better to stay in this thread then let me say that the antimatter is not ended by a single word
Our scientists offer a theory that for any kind of creating matter its equivalent antimatter must be created in a pair process.
Therefore, if this theory is correct, then the total number of any kind of matter must be absolutely identical to its equivalent antimatter.
Hence, the total no. of the protons in the universe should be identical to the total number of Antiprotons.
In the same token, the total number of electrons should be identical to the total number of the positrons.
So, we need to explain why there are more protons than antiprotons and also why there are more electrons than positrons.
Hence, the missing antimatter is more complex than just one element of antimatter.
This is the MOST important issue in our Universe.
Any theory must explain the missing antiprotons and missing positrons.
If we see so critical contradiction in our theory then it proves that we have severe misunderstanding in the Universe theory.
However, instead of comforting this key contradiction in our theory, our scientists bypass it by a simple statement of: "We don't know" or "Maybe" that... the Antimatter had been separated and drifted to different Universe.
Sorry - this is unrealistic.
There is no room for "we don't know or "Maybe".
If our scientists don't know - then please they can't tell us that they know.
If it is "maybe" then maybe they just don't know the real theory for our Universe?
I claim that the chance to create Proton/antiproton by collision between two gamma photons is equal to the chance of creating gold Bars by collision between two plastic bars.
There are no quarks and no gluons in a photon/gamma photon.
Therefore, there is no way to get proton and antiproton from that collision.
This is a pure fiction.
Photon is all about Electron + positron.
Therefore, a collision between two gamma photons could only create electron + positron.
The energy that you set in the photon won't help to convert those basic electron/positron to Proton/antiproton.
Never - Ever.
With regards to the article that you had offered to prove the idea of proton/antiproton pair process due to gamma collision:
"Proton Antiproton Pair Production in Two Photon Collisions"
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/002/28002669.pdf
I know that whatever I would say about this useless article, BC would reject it.
He even reject the idea of the Annihilation:
Quote from: Dave Lev on 30/03/2021 18:57:54
how those new created proton/antiproton could overcome the Annihilation process without any external forces?
Luck.
Chance.
Luck.
Coincidence.
Sorry - there is no way of "chance" or "luck to bypass the annihilation process without external force
This is the meaning of real science.
Therefore, the real "chance" or "Luck" to bypass the annihilation process at that experiment is less than one to one trillion.
Even if we accept this chance, then at least one trillion gamma photons must collides with each other in order to set one free pair of proton/antiproton.
In the meantime, the accumulated heat energy of that process should be:
10^12 * 0.000000000298484 Joules.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 30/03/2021 18:57:54
Therefore, due to this annihilation process and while taking conservation of energy into consideration, don't you agree that this lost of mass/energy must be transformed into some heat energy?
Yes, but not much
About 0.000000000298484 Joules.
And you thought this was going to destroy a city.
So, 298,484 Joules of heat energy might be created before we can get even one real proton/antiproton by "luck" and that even before we consider the luck for that pair to hit the W detector.
Please also be aware that in this experiment there is no special detector for antiproton.
So, even if a proton had been created by some unexpected process, how they could detect its antiproton pair without a special detector for antiproton?
Somehow I have got the impression that this experiment is all about energy detector.
So, as the gamma photon is already at the energy level of proton, then theoretically if the detectors can detect the gamma photon level it could indicate the requested energy for a proton.
This article doesn't prove the creation of antiproton.
Therefore, it is just nonsense.
The missing antiproton and the missing positrons in our Universe tell us the story of our universe.
As the proton includes quarks & gluons it can't be considered as a single particle.
It is closer to atom than closer to a single particle.
Therefore, the same process that could create an atom must create the proton.
Actually, there are no free protons/antiprotons and no free electron/positrons
Therefore, as Atom can't be created by the single particle pair process, also the proton can't be created by that process.
Hence, the same natural process that had been created the Hydrogen atoms had also created its integrated proton plus its extra electron.
Hence, the atom had been created in a single process with its proton and electrons in order to balance its internal electrical charge.
This can clearly explain the missing antiproton and positrons in our Universe.
Please how can our scientists tell us that they know what is correct or incorrect with regards to the antimatter, while they clearly don't know the real answer for the missing antimatter.
-
We know that the electron is a stable single particle state composed of mass and negative charge. It follows, that by the nature of being one irreducible thing, this implies the electron is in a unified state between negative charge and gravity. One irreducible thing, cannot be two things, even if convention says so. The convention was made before these experiments proved the electron to be one irreducible thing.
Say the electron, in the early universe, shifted its balance to the mass side, and less negative charge; unified negative charge-mass shifted toward the mass side, due to extreme gravity, could the electron avoid positron annihilation, by hiding as mostly mass? This is why we need to look at extreme gravity induced phases, that current particle accelerators cannot yet simulate.
Have positrons even been seen in any collider experiments, remaining as a single particle state, like the electron, when all the rest of the matter has been broken down to smaller particles? This would be a state where positive charge and mass are so integrated, to where the line between gravity and positive charge also becomes blurred. This data will tell us if the positron is a single particle or two particles.
I found this quote in Wikipedia. The subject was the positron. I was looking for anything that said the positron was a single particle, or not, under all conditions. Instead I found something that was more interesting to me.
In research published in 2011 by the American Astronomical Society positrons were discovered originating above thunderstorm clouds; positrons are produced in gamma-ray flashes created by electrons accelerated by strong electric fields in the clouds.[25]
Water is once again showing some of its many tricks. The point was, electron currents, driven by the positive charge of the hydrogen protons of water in motion, were making positrons at ambient conditions via gamma rays. This tells me the positrons can come from common matter and even be induced by electrons. Why make your own antagonist?
Thunder clouds generate energy via the phrase changing of water. Water in the atmosphere, was previously liquid water that gained solar energy. This vaporizes the water, which then takes up vapor space. The water vapor applies a partial pressure; high pressure system. When the water vapor condenses into rain, the partial pressure within the local the vapor space, falls; low pressure system.
This low pressure pulls a local vacuum drawing in more higher pressure moist air. As we increase elevation above the thunder cloud, the rising air speeds up the rate of condensation and increase the pressure drop above the thunder cloud; hot air is aggressively pulled upwards.
There is a lowering of entropy, as water vapor becomes liquid water. This lowering of entropy goes against the second law, so there will be a need countering high entropy affects, as an offset for the second law. This will cause increases in complexity, such as cloud rotations, lightning, tornados, and sometimes positron formation in the countering electric fields created by the oxygen of water. The precursors of life took advantage of water's swiss army knife nature and the various countering entropic potentials.
This data also shows that positrons did not need the extreme conditions of the early universe to form from scratch. This is due to the lingering stability of the electron. All you need is lot of water in motion; positive charge, that is resisting gravity; rising clouds.
-
Dear puppypower
Thanks for your intelligent explanation.
With regards to your following question:
Say the electron, in the early universe, shifted its balance to the mass side, and less negative charge; unified negative charge-mass shifted toward the mass side, due to extreme gravity, could the electron avoid positron annihilation, by hiding as mostly mass? This is why we need to look at extreme gravity induced phases, that current particle accelerators cannot yet simulate.
You claim that the current particle accelerators (I assume you mean the CERN accelerator) can't simulate extreme gravity force.
However, there is real natural accelerator that somehow our scientists have neglected.
This accelerator is called the accretion disc. We clearly see it around our SMBH.
I hope that you agree that the gravity force over there is extremely high.
Please be aware that the plasma in that accretion disc is orbiting at about 0.3 the speed of light, while its temp is 10^9 c.
Our scientists wish to believe that this accretion disc is due to falling stars or cloud.
However, they have never ever seen even one falling atom into our accretion disc.
All they see is flares from time to time, while they fully confirm that those flares are due to the Ultra electromagnetic over there.
Therefore, I it is very clear to me that all the matter in the accretion disc had been created by the SMBH EM + Gravity force.
Please be aware that the accretion disc is actually a ring.
The minimal radius (R1) is quite close to the event horizon while the maximal radius (R2) is limited.
Therefore, if the matter in the accretion disc was due to the falling stars, how could it be that they fall all the way to that R2 ring and accelerated to that ultra high velocity(0.3c) at almost pure circular cycle?
Why the aria between R2 to the minimal orbital radius of G cloud and S stars is so wide, while there is no matter at all in that aria?
In other words, how could it be that a star (as S2 for example) which has an elliptical orbital cycle at a relative low velocity, would fall all the way to R2 and surprisingly get that ultra high circular velocity?
I claim that that our scientists have a fatal misunderstanding about the real functionality of the accretion disc.
It seems to me that in any SMBH accretion disc the ratio between R1 to R2 must be almost fixed while R1 must be located at a fixed ratio from the event horizon.
Therefore, the matter in the accretion disc can't come from outside but can ONLY come from inside.
In other words - the accretion disc works as particles/atoms/molecular generator.
We have a confirmation for that by the molecular jet stream that we clearly see above and below the SMBH poles.
This jet stream ejects the new created matter from the accretion disc far above/below the SMBH galactic disc.
This particle generator creates only matter (No antimatter)
Therefore, if we could understand how that particle generator really works, we could understand why there is only matter in our real universe.
-
Say the electron, in the early universe, shifted its balance to the mass side, and less negative charge; unified negative charge-mass shifted toward the mass side, due to extreme gravity, could the electron avoid positron annihilation, by hiding as mostly mass?
No, as that would violate both conservation of mass and conservation of charge.
However, there is real natural accelerator that somehow our scientists have neglected.
This accelerator is called the accretion disc. We clearly see it around our SMBH.
I hope that you agree that the gravity force over there is extremely high.
Please be aware that the plasma in that accretion disc is orbiting at about 0.3 the speed of light, while its temp is 10^9 c.
Our scientists wish to believe that this accretion disc is due to falling stars or cloud.
However, they have never ever seen even one falling atom into our accretion disc.
All they see is flares from time to time, while they fully confirm that those flares are due to the Ultra electromagnetic over there.
Therefore, I it is very clear to me that all the matter in the accretion disc had been created by the SMBH EM + Gravity force.
Please be aware that the accretion disc is actually a ring.
The minimal radius (R1) is quite close to the event horizon while the maximal radius (R2) is limited.
Therefore, if the matter in the accretion disc was due to the falling stars, how could it be that they fall all the way to that R2 ring and accelerated to that ultra high velocity(0.3c) at almost pure circular cycle?
Why the aria between R2 to the minimal orbital radius of G cloud and S stars is so wide, while there is no matter at all in that aria?
In other words, how could it be that a star (as S2 for example) which has an elliptical orbital cycle at a relative low velocity, would fall all the way to R2 and surprisingly get that ultra high circular velocity?
I claim that that our scientists have a fatal misunderstanding about the real functionality of the accretion disc.
It seems to me that in any SMBH accretion disc the ratio between R1 to R2 must be almost fixed while R1 must be located at a fixed ratio from the event horizon.
Therefore, the matter in the accretion disc can't come from outside but can ONLY come from inside.
In other words - the accretion disc works as particles/atoms/molecular generator.
We have a confirmation for that by the molecular jet stream that we clearly see above and below the SMBH poles.
This jet stream ejects the new created matter from the accretion disc far above/below the SMBH galactic disc.
This particle generator creates only matter (No antimatter)
Therefore, if we could understand how that particle generator really works, we could understand why there is only matter in our real universe.
Please don't hijack this thread with your own ideas. Please keep that in the original thread you made about this.
-
Please don't hijack this thread with your own ideas. Please keep that in the original thread you made about this.
Agree
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80881.msg635286#msg635286
-
In the meantime, the accumulated heat energy of that process should be:
10^12 * 0.000000000298484 Joules.
That makes no sense.
You just made up this number.
That's not science.
-
Have positrons even been seen in any collider experiments, remaining as a single particle state, like the electron, when all the rest of the matter has been broken down to smaller particles?
Yes, as far as we can tell, positrons behave identically to electrons
- apart from them being anti-particles of electrons with opposite quantum numbers
There are two particles that are just like "heavy electrons": the muon particle (207 times heavier than an electron) and tau particle (3,475 times as massive).
- The Muon and Tau do decay into lighter particles
- However, we know of no particles lighter than the electron and positron that they could decay into (and still retain the quantum numbers balanced).
- So both the electron and positron are thought to be stable, while muon and tau (plus anti-muon and anti-tau) are not stable
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_(particle) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_(particle))
It is possible to store electrons and positrons indefinitely using magnetic fields
- In fact, today's LHC at CERN was built in the tunnel that was originally housed LEP: It stored electrons and positrons in a ring, so their interactions could be studied
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron%E2%80%93Positron_Collider
-
Have positrons even been seen in any collider experiments, remaining as a single particle state, like the electron, when all the rest of the matter has been broken down to smaller particles?
Yes, as far as we can tell, positrons behave identically to electrons
- apart from them being anti-particles of electrons with opposite quantum numbers
There are two particles that are just like "heavy electrons": the muon particle (207 times heavier than an electron) and tau particle (3,475 times as massive).
- The Muon and Tau do decay into lighter particles
- However, we know of no particles lighter than the electron and positron that they could decay into (and still retain the quantum numbers balanced).
- So both the electron and positron are thought to be stable, while muon and tau (plus anti-muon and anti-tau) are not stable
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_(particle) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_(particle))
It is possible to store electrons and positrons indefinitely using magnetic fields
- In fact, today's LHC at CERN was built in the tunnel that was originally housed LEP: It stored electrons and positrons in a ring, so their interactions could be studied
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron%E2%80%93Positron_Collider
It dawned on me, On Easter, that maybe my intuition about negative charges and positive charges, being different, was more connected to the reality of our universe, instead of the theoretical extrapolations of what could have been our reality, if antimatter ruled. I was concerned with reality, and not the hypothetical, based on a different coin toss. Hypothetical is hard to beat, since it is like a religion based on faith.
The reality is, we live in a universe that is dominated by protons and electrons as the main carriers of charge. The negative charge, as the electron, always remains associated with mass, even under extreme particle collider experiments. The positive charge, in our reality, is not permanently attached to mass, but can be broken down. Our reality has negative charge, unified with mass, at all known conditions. The question becomes, how does the perpetual association of negative charge with mass; electron, alter the bandwidth of the electron and the negative charge in our matter based reality; possible unified gravity-negative charge force?
One possible way to answer this is to consider the earth's solid iron core. At the temperature of the earth's core, iron should be a gas, if the iron was heated at the surface. However, the gravitational based pressures of the earth's core allows the iron to become a solid. Gravity, directly or indirectly causes this change in the behavior of the electron based material properties. This new electron behavior define this extreme phase of iron. The nucleus protons do not alter their orbital behavior to the same degree. But the electrons become different in terms of electron orbital behavior around iron nuclei.
As a gas, the electrons of iron will try to contract inward, closer to individual iron nuclei. But as a hot solid metal, like in the core, the electrons of iron will become delocalized, which in the case of the earth, also helps to generate a strong magnetic field. My guess is the differences in the electron show up as the wider variety of material phase characteristics, held together by a tighter bandwidth positive charge nucleus.
General Relativity deals with mass, gravity and space-time; T1, but it does not address the phases of matter as a function of gravity; T2. The unification, in our material reality, of negative charge and mass suggests gravity has an impact, at the level of the electron, that can alter the phases of matter to suit the needs of gravity, via the attached electron mass.
If I was to guess, since gravity is zero in the center of the earth, due to vector addition, one might expect the electron balance between mass and negative charge to shift toward the EM force side, since there is less tug at the mass of the electron. This could explain the huge EM forces of the magnetic field. As the gravitational potential increases, toward the surface, the electron lowers the expression of EM forces and the pendulum swings in favor of the mass, to create calmer phases more influenced by gravity; rocks. Oxide or O-2 is a common ion in many surface rocks, with the oxide stable with two extra electrons compare to nucleus protons. The electron's negative charge is acting less charge repulsive in oxide and more magnetic.
-
On the other side of the EM force is the proton. The proton can be broken down into sub particles for mass and charge, therefore the association of positive charge with mass, in our known reality, is not as unified as the electron. However, there appears to be compensation, due to the positive charge associating with a much larger mass. The differences may be subtle.
Although the electron; negative charge and electron mass, stays the same, under a wide range of conditions, simply shifting the negative charge-mass balance for new phases, the proton is different due to nuclear reactions. The hydrogen proton, for example, has never undergone nuclear mass burn and therefore has highest mass ratio in terms of single protons. The formation of atoms higher than hydrogen are exothermic, up to iron, and then become endothermic after that; mass burn than mass gain. This suggests an atomic based platform of proton based positive charge-mass ratios, with this interaction of positive charge and mass not as unified as the electron. The proton difference may account for atomic differences, as a function of pressure; gravitational, even with similar electron structures.
The electron is not involved the same way with the nuclear forces as is the proton. This may be due to the protons lack of unification with mass. It would hard to mass burn an integrated electron and still maintain its charge characteristics. The looser association of mass and positive charge in the proton allows a buffer, with positive charge becoming more unified with the nuclear forces than is the electron.
-
Yes they are. Mass and charge in my model are separate entities even in an electron. Positrons and electrons have numericly the same charge with opposite sign and are structurally opposites of each other.
A proton and electron have numerically equal and opposite charge but are not structural opposites.
Charge can be used to construct a preferred direction for the internals of the electron.
-
The positive charge, in our reality, is not permanently attached to mass, but can be broken down.
No.
-
The accepted definitions of positive and negative charge date back over a hundred years. This became one of the cornerstone and foundation premises, on which modern physics has been built. The particle accelerator experiments, that showed that an electron is a single elementary particle, may not have been expected, based on that foundation premise.
However, like a large building that forms a crack in a weight bearing footing, one can try to ignore it due to the inconvenience it can cause. Or one can try a retrofit the footing, knowing that jacking up the side of the building may also open cracks in the finished walls and moldings, that will then need to be repaired. A retrofit could stall physics, for decades, until the rehab is done. Nothing has been done, so the path taken appears to have been to stall. They added more weight onto a weak footing, that had a crack.
The fact remains the electron is one particle with both negative charge and mass. That screams unified forces, connected to mass and negative charge, by virtue of being one thing. The proton is not the built the same way.
The two charges, in the preponderance of the natural data, in our physical reality, have the two charges, in two different types of placeholders, that do not make them behave exactly equal and opposite, even if the charges, are by themselves, are equal and opposite. The negative charge is more unified to mass.
Isolated charge does not hold our reality together. A cornerstone of science and physics has a crack. It may be small, or it may be large, but avoiding addressing this is not how science is supposed to work. That is how politics works; the swamp has the money and final say.
I am a nobody. I am not an activist in the sense of working the system. I am my own worse enemy in that sense of politicking for resources and a fair shake. I offer a less threatening way to get the job done. I saw this and other problems, years ago, and have worked on solutions, many of which nobody saw any need to address. If the machine is not broken do not fix it. But it was broken and it needed repair. I did my best to pour new footings, even though I was sabotaged each step of the way. However, this led to better and better concrete and rebar blends.
I finally came to the realization that the electron and positron being different was a lost path, since the data is disproportionate for the electron versus the positron. This duality is not a significant part of our current physical reality, and it was a moot point used for delay and confusion. The reality is the proton and electron, contain the two charges in 99.99% within the universe, and nearly 100% on earth, with only one charge; negative, fully unified to mass. Negative charge is not exactly what it appears to be based on old thinking.
The idea of a unified theory of force, to me, is similar to the conservation of energy. I will call it the conservation of force. Forces cannot be created or destroyed, but they can be transformed into other forces, as long as the total force remains the same. Anything less is not fully unified. One bridge force between the negative charge and mass of an electron, is magnetism. The oxygen atom can hold more electrons the it has nucleus protons; oxide-2. This suggests a stronger magnetic component to overcome charge repulsion.
Electrons in the core of the earth generate a large magnetic field. The core is the place where gravity is lowest; vector addition, and therefore potential on the mass of the electron is low or minimal. There is opportunity for a magnetic addendum; force conservation, of the unified force of the electron. At the surface, where the gravitational potential is higher, electrons do not normally generate the same levels of magnetism, unless we make it a machine to do this.
One natural surface exception is created by water. Large thunderclouds can generate electric fields that have been observed to create gamma rays and positrons; observed from space. The electrons can make positrons; virtual positrons. This affect is connected to the electrons and hydrogen protons of water. This observation may be a way to investigate what happens when unified forces interact with non-unified forces. Only the electron can change gears for the needs of both.
-
The proton is not the built the same way.
But positrons are.
The negative charge is more unified to mass.
No, it isn't.
-
However, like a large building that forms a crack in a weight bearing footing, one can try to ignore it due to the inconvenience it can cause.
This analogy would only be relevant if there was a crack in physics as it currently stands.
If you think there is such a crack, then please explain carefully what it is (in another thread).
If you try to do so but fail, then please accept that it's not because we aren't open to change, but because you have offered no reason to change.