[puppypower (OP)]

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.

.

[alancalverd]

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".

[Kryptid]

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.

[evan_au]

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

[puppypower (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[puppypower (OP)]

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.

   

[Kryptid]

That's still wrong. Positrons are every bit as stable as electrons.

[charles1948]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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,

[Halo_Nova]

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.

[Dave Lev]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[Dave Lev]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Dave Lev]

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.