[puppypower (OP)]

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)

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.
 
 

[puppypower (OP)]

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.

[talanum1]

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.

[Bored chemist]

The positive charge, in our reality, is not permanently attached to mass, but can be broken down.

No.

[puppypower (OP)]

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.   

[Kryptid]

The proton is not the built the same way.

But positrons are.

The negative charge is more unified to mass.

No, it isn't.

[Bored chemist]

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.