2 betas 1 real

[AntonioLao]

Cosmological theories cannot explain the unmixing of matter and antimatter by accepting numerous experimental proofs of quantum mechanics that matter and antimatter were created equally, simultaneously at the infinitesimal localized space-time region of the big bang. Moreover, for that matter, no cosmological theories can explain why a universal favoritism or bias exists in favor of matter and discriminating antimatter by denying its right to exist. Furthermore, cosmologists were completely dumbstruck by the suggestion that some distant galaxies millions of lightyears away might be made entirely of antimatter even without the observed gamma outburst.

On the other hand, high energy physics provides ample evidence that there are two distinct beta decay processes which should be perfectly symmetrical at high energy but broken at low energy. The first is where and when a proton decays into a neutron, a positron, and a neutrino: P ® N + e+ +n. The second is where and when a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino: N ® P + e- + n-. These are both mediated by weak nuclear force or at high temperature and energy appropriately by the electroweak force. However, at low energy, only the second nuclear disintegration is really observed and the process is completed within 15 minutes while the first could never happen even if the wait is a thousand quadrillions quadrillions years.

In terms of space-time charges, the first gives a hydrogen configuration of (16, 16) while the helium configuration of (46, 46) and (16, 16) + (46, 46) = (62, 62). This upheld the principle of even number conservation. The second gives (12, 12) for hydrogen and (50, 50) for helium and again (12, 12) + (50, 50) = (62, 62) preserving total even number conservation. But in order to agree with the abundance ratio of 3 to 1, the first must borrow energy from the vacuum while the second only need to release internal energy. In light of the experimental impossibility of the first process, it is logical to surmise that nature refuses to lend its energy in order to conserve its uniformity.

[mkirkpatrick]

Nature has no need to lend energy,it is energy itself.




regards michael.

[neutralino]

The answer to some of your questions can be found here.

However, it is true that one of the most important questions in cosmology, and particle physics, at the moment is why the fundamental forces favour matter over antimatter. This is currently being research and, as such, does not have an answer.

[AntonioLao]

does not have an answer

Thanks. There are many answers from quantum mechanics perspective. For example, parity nonconservation concerning kaons.

[dleviwing]

I don’t believe that charge constitutes calling something an opposite stuff. Charge could be a function of structure and not a function of opposite substance. An antiproton is made of the same fundamental stuff as a proton. Negative and positive are functions of interactions, not of the fundamental substance.

[N0B0DY]

If positive and negative charges are different states of the same particle, would the same apply to positive and negative mass, Dave?

[dleviwing]

If positive and negative charges are different states of the same particle, would the same apply to positive and negative mass, Dave?

No such a thing as positive and negative mass Nobody except to denote + or -m in an equation. Do you have a link to someone who claims otherwise?

[N0B0DY]

I used to follow his work more closely than I do now, but might prove relevant: http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html

Also Gabriel LaFreniere has put together a strictly scientific model of the universe based solely on electrons: http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm that would require negative mass to bind molecules together.

I think the negative mass would "exist" beyond the planck horizon and be the cause for expansion as well.

[dleviwing]

I used to follow his work more closely than I do now, but might prove relevant: http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html

Very low probability with extreme uncertainty.

Also Gabriel LaFreniere has put together a strictly scientific model of the universe based solely on electrons: http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm that would require negative mass to bind molecules together.

No negative mass here; only negative charge.

I think the negative mass would "exist" beyond the planck horizon and be the cause for expansion as well.

I believe the absolute laws of physics hold true even beyond the Planck horizon. No negative mass there either.

[N0B0DY]

Dave,

I'm equating mass and energy, but negating rest mass. So the negative energy of gravity is equivalent to negative mass. The positive mass created in the form of charges from high-energy collisions is equivalent to negative energy; the negative mass created in the form of massless particles with no charge is equivalent to positive energy.

I didn't imply that the laws would change at planck either, but that although the gravitational (negative energy) effect from planck mass is negligible, its cumulative effect is the cause for coupling (matter expansion). I.e., G is the cause for g.