Gravity and The Unified Theory                                           
The Physical Means of How Gravity Works and at last, The Unified Theory.

Author: Eric Sabo East Haddam, CT
Sub Atomic Particles

 Sub-Atomic Particles

Author, Eric Sabo, East Haddam, CT

May 14, 2008

 

            Mark Twain, famous American Author, once said; “All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure.” Before embarking on writing this paper, I was confident that I was fairly ignorant about sub-atomic particles. Having given up on them some 20 years ago because there were too many and the whole subject was too complicated. It seemed non-productive to spend much time on a subject that would have little or no impact on improving my everyday life.

            The list seems endless. Muons, Pions, Baryons, Fermions, Hadrons, Bosons, Mesons, Leptons, Quarks and Neutrinos. How does one make sense of all the variations observed in all of the sub atomic particle realm?

I have great difficulty with the idea that a particle can exist that does not interact with matter and passes through the Earth without detection. In correspondence with Walter Babin (www.wbabin.net), I asked him if he had any thoughts on neutrinos. His response was; “Don't know much about neutrinos other than they are a product of the decay process. We are to assume they are massive, but it is hard to understand why in beta decay, it does not exceed 1.16 max including the electron. A pion decays into a muon losing about 1/4 of its mass, then the muon decays to an electron, losing a mass of 206e! Where does it go? Is it mass? It travels at the speed of light, so my guess it is not mass at all. It must be gamma radiation sluffed off by the electron. Its a mystery!” Off the top of his head, that’s pretty good.

 

            My response was, “If what you say is true, and the halflet scenario in my Matter-Antimatter paper is true, then it becomes obvious that the excess mass is spun off as a cloud of halflets. Because any decay is not as violent as the matter-antimatter reaction, the halflets would be able to exist as a cloud for a short time, held in suspension by each other. The cloud would be unobservable as it would have no net charge. Some of the halflets would then be scooped up by nearby protons and electrons that could afford to do so. The rest would then pair up at their leisure, outside the observation field, forming photons, most likely in the infrared range that would then manifest itself as heat.

Mystery solved! Unfortunately, the neutrino would have to go the way of the graviton.

If all this is true, there are going to be a lot of very unhappy people.”                                                                                                                 

            He was quick to respond that before I write this paper, I had better investigate the muon decay process.

            To begin I needed information. So, where does one go for quick and concise information? The internet, specifically Wikipedia. It is all there and for the purposes of this paper it is adequate. After some investigation in Wikipedia. I soon felt that it was more a quagmire than a mystery.

First, what is the one thing they all have in common? They are very short lived. They decay into something else and eventually just dissappear. Some cannot exist outside confinement. They are all the product of some violent nuclear reaction or collision. That is actually more than one thing in common. They have a lot in common. They have all been studied in great detail. The one main thing is that they are all not viable in the real world and are on a path to oblivion. But how and where do they all finally go? After much thought, it seems that the muon is a quick way to conserve some mass in a cosmic ray and particle accelerator collisions.
The Neutrino, From Wikipedia;

The neutrino was first postulated in December 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli. Pauli theorized that an undetected particle was carrying away the observed difference between the energy, momentum, and angular momentum of the initial and final particles.

Neutrinos are elementary particles that travel close to the speed of light, lack an electric charge, are able to pass through ordinary matter almost undisturbed and are thus extremely difficult to detect. As of 1999, it is believed neutrinos have a minuscule, but non-zero mass. The current name neutrino was coined by Enrico Fermi, who developed the first theory describing neutrino interactions, as a pun on neutrone, the Italian name of the neutron: neutrone seems to use the -one suffix (even if it is a complete word, not a compound), which in Italian indicates a large object, whereas -ino indicates a small one. In the muon decay process, a muon decays to an electron, two neutrinos and possibly other particles with a net charge of zero.

Having great difficulty with the idea that a particle can exsit that does not interact with matter and passes through the Earth without detection, it seems Pauli postulated the neutrino out of convenience. Fermi liked it, named it, and now it is bible. It also seems odd that not much attention  was given to the other particles with a net charge of zero. I believe that Fermi would undoubtedly have called those other particles with a net charge of zero, Neutrini (small neutrons). I’d call them sub-muons. It is also possible that neutrinos are really sub muons with a comparable lifetime of the muon.

I did find some things of interest in Wikipedia. For example; a Feynman diagram.

A Feynman diagram of a positron and an electron annihilating into a photon which then decays back into a positron and an electron. When a low-energy electron annihilates a low-energy positron (anti-electron), they can only produce two or more gamma ray photons.

The Feynman drawing seems to support the halflet scenario of my Matter Antimatter paper.

Question; How is it possible to form two or more photons and then decay back to more electrons and positrons? It seems that the gammas would travel on impacting matter, losing energy all the way down the EM spectrum to the infrared and finally being absorbed.

Another item of interest from Wikipedia;

Observation of a neutrino hitting a proton in a bubble chamber. The collision occurred at the point where three tracks emanate on the right of the photograph.

            If neutrinos do not interact with matter and are hard to detect, how did they get one to impact a proton in the bubble chamber. It seems more likely that what we are seeing is one of those “possibly other particles with a net charge of zero” (Neutrini or sub-muon) impacting the proton.

            From a macroscopic perspective, if we go “all in” with the proposed halflet theory in my matter-antimatter paper, an avenue to resolve a myriad of scenarios in the sub atomic particle realm seems to be provided. It seems that continually in every minute of every day,  there are processes occurring where mass is being converted to energy. That energy is in the form of photons that range across the entire EM spectrum. For just one example;

Bremsstrahlung, from German bremsen "to brake" and Strahlung "radiation", i.e. "braking radiation" or "deceleration radiation"), is electromagnetic radiation produced by the deceleration of a charged particle, such as an electron, when deflected by another charged particle, such as an atomic nucleus.

            The muon has a mean lifetime of 2.2µs. But, that is observed on earth after colliding with matter invoking the above process. The lifetime of muons and sub muons would most likely be much longer in vacuo.

            It seems to me that all the subatomic particles are actually sub atomic debris from some catastrophic event. they can be categorized because they struggle to be viable and fall into the closest mass range in an attempt to achieve viability. Quarks are always in threes because the proton doesn’t want to go, but when forced, what remains attempts to be viable and three seems to work. Thus, three bodies of near equal characteristics.

            Also, it is a good bet that no two muons or quarks are ever exactly alike (like snowflakes) except in that they all eventually meet the same fate. Whether they are anti particles or not depends on the ratio of positive to negative halflets. An equal number of each means they have no charge.

Because they are all not viable, they eventually spin off their mass as a cloud of halflets. The halflets would be able to exist as a cloud for a very short time, held in suspension by each other. The cloud would be unobservable as it would have no net charge. Some of the halflets would then be scooped up by nearby protons and electrons that could afford to do so. The rest would then pair up as the cloud becomes unstable due to interaction with adjacent matter, either immediately or outside the observation field, forming photons. If the pairings were randomly scattered across the entire EM spectrum, that would make detection difficult. As it is, all events in the sub atomic realm appear to be somewhat random and chaotic.

 

See below drawing;

                   
             A problem from Wikipedia;

“For a typical nuclear reactor with a thermal power of 4,000 MW and an electrical power generation of 1,300 MW, this corresponds to a total power production of 4,250 MW (Mega-Watts), of which 250 MW is radiated away, and disappears, as anti-neutrino radiation. This is to say, 250 MW of fission energy is lost from this reactor and does not appear as heat, since the anti-neutrinos penetrate all normal building materials essentially traceless. The exact energy spectrum is mostly uncertain and depends, for example, on the degree to which the fuel is burned.”

250 MW is a big nut. But, if neutrinos were sub muons with a comparable lifetime to muons, they could actually exit the building, eventually spin off their mass as a cloud of halflets, pairing randomly and scattering across the entire EM spectrum. It is also possible the pairing could land mostly in the ranges of the ELF range (3-30 Hz) or CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) range of 160.2 GHz. Perhaps this is the means by which the CMBR is actually formed. All the stars in the universe would most certainly be capable of performing that task.

Assuming neutrinos are sub muons with a comparable lifetime to that of a muon, the typical above nuclear reactor would then radiate those sub muons in the below manner;

 

 

125 MW below ground and 125 MW radiated through the atmosphere which is less dense. Once outside atmosphere, the sub muons could travel great distances before spinning off their mass as CMBR.

If you think this paper is too ambiguous or even crazy, that’s because it is. But, as Neils Bohr would ask, “is it crazy enough?” The whole sub atomic realm is far too complex and ambiguous to address in one paper. But here’s just one more crazy idea;

            While accelerating towards the speed of light in your spacecraft, your mass is increasing. Could it be that while plowing through the CMBR, you are forced to take on more and more halflets from the radiation the faster you go? Like driving through a rainstorm, it is proven, the faster you go, the wetter you get. And, when you slow down, the excess halflets are all emitted as;

            Bremsstrahlung, from German bremsen "to brake" and Strahlung "radiation", i.e. "braking radiation" or "deceleration radiation"), is electromagnetic radiation produced by the deceleration of a charged particle, such as an electron, when deflected by another charged particle, such as an atomic nucleus.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                Thank you for your time,

                                                                             Eric Sabo