Widdekind

Please tell me -- would "virtual photons" explain the electrostatic attraction, between oppositely charged particles ? Could "virtual photons" have "backwards momentum", so that the emission of the same would pull the emitter towards the target (a little like a "reverse rocket motor", which pulls the particle in the same direction as the (photon) mass-energy propelled away), and the absorption of the same would pull the target towards the emitter ?

Please ponder the following "scalar" (S = 1/2) baryons (3 quarks): [math]\Lambda^0 (uds)[/math] (1116 MeV) [math]\Sigma^0 (uds)[/math] (1193 MeV) Both are comprised of the same set of quarks (uds), and both have the same Spin (1/2). Yet, the latter is some 77 MeV more massive than the former, into which it typically decays by simple photon emission: [math]\Sigma^0 \to \Lambda^0 + \gamma[/math] This decay does not produce particles, like combinations of quarks or electrons + neutrinos, strongly suggesting that the [math]\Sigma^0[/math] state is a purely Electromagnetic excitation of the [math]\Lambda^0[/math]. Likewise, let us look at the charmed-Xi & charmed-Xi-prime pair(s) (also "scalar" (S=1/2) Spin (ground-)states): [math]\Xi_c^{+} (usc)[/math] (2468 MeV) [math]\Xi_c^{+'} (usc)[/math] (2575 MeV) [math]\Xi_c^{0} (dsc)[/math] (2471 MeV) [math]\Xi_c^{0'} (dsc)[/math] (2578 MeV) Being about 107 MeV more massive, these "primed" particles also typically decay down into their respective "unprimed" partners, via apparently purely Electromagnetic photon emssion: [math]\Xi_c^{+'} \to \Xi_c^{+} + \gamma[/math] [math]\Xi_c^{0'} \to \Xi_c^{0} + \gamma[/math] Without affecting the relative orientations of their constituent quarks' Magnetic Moments (arising from their Spins, which are fixed, for these "scalar" ground-states (S=1/2)), what kind of Electromagnetic interaction could account for these [math]\Sigma^0[/math] & [math]\Xi_c^{'}[/math] "excited" states ?? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedDecay from "lateral re-arrangement" of Quarks ? Arguing from a completely classical picture, the lowest energy state, both Electrostatically & Magnetically, would be "charge (& Magnetic Moment) symmetric": [math]\Lambda^0 (d \uparrow u \downarrow s \uparrow)[/math] [math]\Xi_c^0 (d \uparrow c \downarrow s \uparrow)[/math] But, were one to "laterally rearrange" those quarks: [math]\Lambda^0 (d \uparrow u \downarrow s \uparrow) \to (d \uparrow s \uparrow u \downarrow )[/math] [math]\Xi_c^0 (d \uparrow c \downarrow s \uparrow) \to (d \uparrow s \uparrow c \downarrow)[/math] then one could conceivably construct a purely Magnetically excited state, somewhat less Electromagnetically bound, and so somewhat more massive. The following figure attempts to illustrate this simple suggestion (completely qualitatively): Uploaded with ImageShack.us Note that the [math]\Xi_c^0 (dcs)[/math] is a "Generational excitation" of the [math]\Lambda^0 (dus)[/math], where the 1st Generation u [math]\to[/math] 2nd Generation c. And, both behave somewhat similarly. So, "going with the flow", one could start to suspect, that a further "Generational excitation", of the [math]\Xi_c^0 (dcs) \to \Omega_c^0 (scs)[/math] (or [math]\to \Xi_{cb}^0 (dcb)[/math]), might mean, that that charmed Omega-zero baryon (or charmed-bottom-Xi-zero) might also display some sort of similar excited state, producing a purely photon emission decay. However, it seems that this suggested decay has not been observed in the [math]\Omega_c^0[/math]. Yet, the [math]\Xi_{cb}^{0'}[/math] has been observed, as the "charmed-bottom-Xi-zero-prime", although its particular properties yet await measurement. (Then, since "Generational excitations" seem to work, why not consider a "Generational de-excitation", from the [math]\Lambda^0 (uds)[/math] to the neutron (udd) ?? Are there any unusual excitation states of the neutron , based upon the pattern, w/ probable mass about 1000 MeV ??) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedList of the "neutron-like" neutral baryons [math]n^0[/math] (udd) (940 MeV) [math]\Lambda^0[/math] (uds) (1116 MeV) [math]\Sigma^0[/math] (uds) (1193 MeV) [math]\Xi_c^{+}[/math] (usc) (2468 MeV) [math]\Xi_c^{+'}[/math] (usc) (2575 MeV) [math]\Xi_c^{0}[/math] (dsc) (2471 MeV) [math]\Xi_c^{0'}[/math] (dsc) (2578 MeV) [math]\Omega_c^0[/math] (scs) (2698 MeV) [math]\Xi_{cb}^0[/math] (dcb) [math]\Xi_{cb}^{0'}[/math] (dcb) From this, one can quickly see, that the "Generationally symmetric" neutral baryons -- those whose quarks come all from the same Generation ([math]n^0, \Omega_c^0[/math]) -- show no ~100 MeV excitation state. In the case of the neutron, Magnetic Moment interactions demand that all 3 quarks' Magnetic Moments are parallel, produced when the lone up quark Spins anti-parallel: [math]n^0 (d \uparrow u \downarrow d \uparrow)[/math]. But, in the more massive, "Generationally asymmetric", neutral baryons, perhaps the more massive quarks aren't quite as constrained, leading to excited (S=1/2) spin states, along the lines of [math]\Sigma^0 (d \uparrow u \downarrow s \downarrow)[/math] vs. [math]\Lambda^0 (d \uparrow u \downarrow s \uparrow)[/math] ???

Wikipedia says: So, such could account for particle-particle "pushing" (repulsion). Yet, what about "pulling" (attraction) ? (How could a photon, propagating one way, have "backwards pointing" Poynting momentum ?) And, if photons (S=1) mediate EM interactions, does that mean that EM interactions always involve the exchange of Angular Momentum ?

Pions mass ~140 MeV, most of the mass being above & beyond the "bare mass" of the constituent (anti)quarks (5-10 MeV). This amounts to ~65 MeV of gluons per quark. Nucleons mass ~940 MeV, etc., amounting to ~310 MeV of gluons per quark. Why is there ~5x as much "glue" per quark, in baryons, over mesons ? If each quark bonds to every other quark, there ought to be: [math]\left( \stackrel{3}{2} \right) : \left( \stackrel{2}{2} \right) = 3[/math] times as much "glue", in baryons, over mesons (a "triad" of bonds, vs. a single "string"). But, instead, there's roughly 930/130 = 7x as much "glue" in baryons, vs. mesons, more than twice what such a simple accounting indicates. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFrom D.Griffiths' Introduction to Elementary Particles (2nd. ed.), pg. ~175: Flavor Bare Mass Effective Mass Glue Mass u 2 336 334 d 5 340 335 s 95 486 391 c 1300 1550 250 b 4200 4730 530 t 174000 177000 3000 Thus, excluding the poorly studied Top quark, which has never been observed bound (?), the "glue mass" (Meff - Mbare) per quark is (quasi-)constant, at about 350 MeV / quark. Quarks "ooze" the same amount of glue, irrespective of Generation (much less rest mass)* ?? * Generation is changed, and hence determined (?), by the Weak Force, irrespective of the Strong / Color Force. From such a perspective, and given that Color Charge is conserved, it might make some sense that changing the Generation of a quark, which only affects its rest mass, would not affect how it interacts thru the Strong / Color Force. The anomalously low "glue mass" of the c, might mean, that c's have been studied mostly in mesons, which make allot less "glue" than baryons. And, the slowly increasing "glue mass", of the more & more massive quarks, might mean, that those more massive quarks "bowl" or "barrel" further afield from their fellows, stretching their glue-bond-bands tighter, and increasing their energy.

If photons must be laterally polarized, how can photons, exchanged along the line between two particles, explain the longitudinal "pushing" & "pulling", along that line, caused by Electrostatic forces ??

Photons are eigenstates of the Charge Conjugation © operator, with eigenvalue -1 (D.Griffiths. Intro. Elem. Part., pg. ~70). Might that mean, that turning a photon into an "anti-photon", involves a 180 degree phase shift ([math]e^{i \pi} = -1[/math]) ?? After all, particles annihilate their anti-particles, and light wave-trains shifted by 180 degrees deconstructively interfere. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Is it true, that photon "splitting", into pairs of particles/antiparticles, generally only happens near nuclei (and, presumably, there super-strong electromagnetic fields) ?? Cf. Vacuum Polarization*. * Gluons can "split", into quark-antiquark pairs, when stretched far enough (cf. link). But, the Color Force increases with distance, so that such "splitting" also occurs in extreme "Color Fields". Maybe Gauge Bosons "split" in extreme fields ?? (Wouldn't that be where they'd have the highest energies, anyway, for potential pair production??)

Could there be a difference, between the spacetime, of the "fixed past", and the "flexible future" ? Using the oft-cited "rubber sheet analogy", would the spacetime fabric of the "flexible future", full of unfixed possibilities, possibly be sort of "supple", in comparison to the "old & leathery" spacetime, of the fixed & "carved in stone" past ???

That sounds suspiciously like a claim, that the population of the Oort Cloud, coincides closely with the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB). If so, that may have been when water was deposited upon the planets of the Inner Solar System. Perhaps, then, Venus never had oceans, as it was already a runaway Greenhouse, before water was deposited; and/or Venus, farther from Jupiter, received less water than the Earth. Were that the case, one would expect the most water to have been dumped on Mars, the least on Mercury, with Earth & Venus in between. This is also completely consistent, with the proposal of Panspermia, given that the LHB (~3.9 Gya) coincides closely with the first fossils of Life upon this particular planet (~3.8 Gya). "...ages between 2.76 and 3.92 billion years ago (Ga). The lack of impact melt older than 3.92 Ga supports the concept of a short, intense period of bombardment in the Earth-moon system at ~3.9 Ga. This was an anomalous spike of impact activity on the otherwise declining impact- frequency curve" (Science). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This site says that Epsilon Eridani, an 0.85 Msol K2-class Orange Dwarf about 11 light-years away, & 1 billion years old, has a "Comet Belt" corresponding to our own Kuiper Belt: Since that star system is so similar to our own, perhaps that points to the presence of an Oort-like Cloud as well ? Note, in the previous picture, the radically reduced size of the older Sun's Kuiper Belt, compared to the younger Epsilon Eridani's comet belt. That might mean, that a significant fraction of the Sun's Kuiper Belt has been gravitationally "shorn away", over the past 4 billion years, through interactions with passing stars.

The Weak Force couples Up quarks to Down* quarks, which "are linear combinations of the physical quarks d, s, & b [Mass eigenstates ??]", roughly equal to: d* = 0.974 d + 0.227 s + 0.008 b Furthermore, the effective bound-state masses, of the d, s, & b are roughly 340, 486, & 4730 MeV (D.Griffiths. Intro. Elem. Part. (2nd. ed.), pp. 78,135). Using these numbers to calculate the effective bound-state mass, of the Up quark's d* Weak Force interaction partner: <md*> = 0.9742 <md> + 0.2272 <ms> + 0.0082 <mb> = 348 MeV Does that mean, that a Down quark must be energetically excited, by about 8 MeV, in order to couple, through the Weak Force, to an Up quark ??

This site has a brief simulation, showing a High-Energy collision between gold nuclei, as well as other information on Quarks & Gluons.

The "OZI Rule" states that any process, which is "mediated in the middle" (my words) entirely by Gluons, is suppressed. Does that mean, that "Glue-balls" would also probably be suppressed ? David Griffiths. Introduction to Elementary Particle Physics, pg. 83. ("Suppressed" does not mean "Forbidden".)

I found this: Long Period Comets (LPCs) older than Solar System ?? From Kenneth R. Lang. The Cambridge Guide to the Solar System, pg. 365-66: CONCLUSION: LPCs show no "gravitational correlation" to typical, Solar System-like, motions. They could not have formed as from our Sun's collapsing cloud core 3/4 of the distance between Sol & Proxima Centauri (200,000 out of 271,000 AU) is occupied by LPCs This is completely consistent, w/ LPCs be extra-Solar objects, whose ices & rocks might predate our particular planet.

Charge & Color Charge seem to be "vector" (Quantized) quantities -- they have (Quantized) magnitude (e.g. |e|) & direction ([math]\pm e; \pm R/G/B \; \; (R/\bar{R}, \; G/\bar{G}, \; B/\bar{B})[/math]). This "vector" nature of charge can be explained as "Hyperspatial rotations", specifically "flips"*. * It seems striking, that there is one kind of Electrical Charge (|e|), and three kinds of Color Charge (R/G/B), even as there is 1 time + 3 space dimensions.

Thanks for the numbers. What about the photon field, wouldn't it, too, be at 6000 K ?

What is an example of localization, within a single energy eigenstate ?

More Gedanken-Experiments on Hyperspatial Rotations & Anti-Matter Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMatter / Anti-matter asymmetries arise from asymmetric Hyper-Potential (??) Antimatter is matter, that has been "Hyperspatially flipped over" (PPs). Thus, whereas the Wave Functions of matter particles, when considered "across" the "(hyper-)thickness" of spacetime, might have some sort of "hyperspatial orientation", from hyperspatially "in" to "out" (along the "w" hyper-dimension), antimatter particles would be oppositely oriented, from hyperspatially "out" to "in". Somehow, this "flip" apparently reverses Electroweak "charge" ([math]+ \to -[/math]), as well as Strong Force "color charge" ([math]red \to \bar{red}[/math]). Hyperspatially reversed antimatter does not behave completely like its normal matter counterparts: Perhaps this asymmetry indicates, that the Hyper-Potential acting "across" spacetime, from "in" (the 'floor', or 'inside edge', of spacetime), to "out" (the 'ceiling', or 'outside edge', of spacetime), is not perfectly symmetric (Square Well), but somewhat skewed "to one side" (Saw-tooth Potential), especially at higher energies (> GeV).

The book "provides a clear & readable introduction to the fascinating world of particle physics" [back cover]. After further reading (pg. 108), I seemingly strayed after Fermi's "first theory of Beta Decay" from 1933 AD, which treated nucleons as "structureless building blocks of matter", and that "the change of charge, in the decay of the neutron into a proton, is caused by the emission of an electron & antineutrino at a point". But, "in 1938 AD, Oscar Klein suggested that a Spin 1 particle ('W Boson") mediated the decay, this boson playing a role in Weak Interactions like that of the Photon in the Electromagnetic case". This was maybe motivated from the fact that "the electron & antineutrino each have Spin 1/2, and so their combination can have Spin total 0 or 1. The Photon, by contrast, has Spin 1. By analogy with Electromagnetism, Fermi had (correctly) supposed that only the Spin 1 combination emerged in the Weak Decay". Since the decay of down-quarks must be mediated by (big) bosons, my previous picture, of pair creation plus "snatch & grab", goes against the Standard Model, and so is probably an inappropriate picture. Still, the size scales seem striking: Down-quark [~10-18 m] W--boson [~10-18 m] Up-quark [~10-18 m] nucleons [~10-15 m] (x 103) Electron (~1 MeV) [~10-12 m] (x 106) Anti-Neutrino (~1 MeV) [~10-12 m] (x 106) atoms [~10-10 m] Thus, the W-, barely barreling beyond one quark's width away from the Down, decays, its debris "inflating" furiously, swiftly swelling in size maybe a million times -- in the process, "puffing up" past the size scale of the (new) neutron, and nearing similar sizes of atoms, before "warping away" at significant speed. It sort-of seems, as if the Down "burps" out a W-, which rapidly proceeds to "pop open", a little like a Jack-in-the-Box, "springing" the then produced pair of particles. Question about Spin flips in Down decays (??) From the same said cited source (pg. 95): So, starting with the neutron ([math]d \uparrow u \downarrow d \uparrow[/math]), the proton apparently appears as ([math]d \uparrow u \downarrow u \downarrow[/math]), the Down quark seemingly "spin flipping" from the emission of the W- (??) ([math]d \uparrow \; \; \; \to \; \; \; u \downarrow \; \; + \; \; W^{-} \uparrow[/math]), with the W- soon "splitting asunder" into a produced pair of particles ([math]W^{-} \uparrow \; \; \; \to \; \; \; e^{-} \uparrow \; \; + \; \; \bar{\nu_e} \uparrow [/math]). (It's almost as if the [math]d \uparrow[/math] was "really" an [math]u \downarrow[/math] "all along", but "burdened" with a "counter-rotating" [math]W^{-} \uparrow[/math], which was subsequently "sprung", although this particular picture probably could not accomodate the Down's mechanical angular momentum (1/2) along with its magnetic moment (-1/3)*.) * Perhaps you could conceive, of a Down, as an Up "burdened" with extra (charged, -1) mass. This could account for the Down's larger mass. But, to stay spin 1/2, the Down's rotation rate would slightly slow, from the rate it would "choose on its own", were it an Up. Thus, the "loaded on" charge-mass packet "{-1}" would slowly start to "unscrew", a little like a backwards-threaded lawn-mower blade, as the "buried" Up quark started to "spin ahead" of its burden (a little like Earth's core rotates more rapidly than the crust). After, on average, 11 minutes, the "loaded mass-charge packet" {-1} would unscrew, and spin off, as a W- (?!?!).

What about Down-quark decay ? Please ponder Hawking Radiation, arising around Black Holes. It is a process, of: Pair Creation Partial Interaction -- one particle of pair captured Escape -- other particle of pair escapes Now, physicist Frank Close states: Adopting this picture, of Neutrinos as "charge scoops", capable of carrying off "charge packets" from nuclei (to wit, "mugging" Down-quarks), is there, then, any reason why the decay of Down-quarks cannot be explained, as the effective equivalent (at least) of some sort of similar, HR-like process (??): [math]d \to d(\nu_e \bar{\nu_e})[/math] (Pair Creation) [math] \to (d \nu_e) \bar{\nu_e} \to (u e^{-}) \bar{\nu_e}[/math] ("Mugging") [math]\to u + e^{-} + \bar{\nu_e}[/math] (Escape, "snatch-n-grab") In this picture, a Down-quark (~10-18m) flitting about inside of a Neutron (~10-15m) is constantly "harassed" by "near miss" Quantum Fluctuations, until, after roughly 11 minutes, one of the "grasping pick-pocket" pairs manages to emerge within one quark's width (~10-18m, range of Weak Force) of the "intended target" (Wave Functions literally overlapping), with the Anti-Neutrino making its escape, as its Neutrino "partner in crime" manages to "mug" the Down-quark of {-1} charge, converting the Down into an Up. This picture presents the emergence, of an Electron & Anti-Neutrino, from the vicinity of the Down-quark (which leaves behind an Up-quark in its stead), not so much as an emission (from withinside the Down-quark itself), but rather as an interaction between the Down and its (immediate, even internal) environment. EDIT: Quarks & Neutrinos are stunningly small (~10-18m). Electrons, emitted by Beta Decay, typically have energies of order their rest mass, and, so, have wavelengths of order their Compton Wavelength (~10-12). This might mean, that as the "pick-pocket" Neutrino (~10-18m) "mugs" the Down-quark (~10-18m) which it appeared "on top of", it "inflates", like a leech, swelling some million times in size (~10-12), before drinking its fill of "blood" (charge).

In reality, neutrons are heavier than protons, and so, if free, the former decay into the latter, with a half-life of 11 minutes: [math]n^0 \to p^{+} e^{-} \bar{\nu}_e[/math] But, what if protons were heavier than neutrons ? Would that then mean, energetically, that all Hydrogen atoms would "collapse decay" into neutrons ? [math]p^{+} \to n^0 e^{+} \nu_e[/math] (what if ?) [math]e^{-} p^{+} \to n^0 \nu_e[/math] (what if ?)

What is the B0 to Muon decay mode ? This paper is pretty opaque. In analogy w/ the Neutral Kaon (K0), the decay path is perhaps something such as (?): [math]B^0 \to \pi^{+} \mu^{-} \bar{\nu}_{\mu}[/math] [math](s \bar{d}) \to (u \bar{d}) \mu^{-} \bar{\nu}_{\mu}[/math] as seen here:

Perhaps "partial collapse" ? A large, extended, "plane-wave-like WF" (free electron) shrinks & "deflates down", into a localized, confined, spheroidal sort of WF (bound electron). Such roughly resembles WFC in kind, if not degree.

What about the Temperature being hotter than the surface of the Sun; or, that our Sun has (supposedly) dragged the Oort Cloud through the Local Bubble & Local Interstellar Cloud for millions of years ?

Anti-matter is merely Matter that's (hyperspatially) "flipped over" & "upside down" (in spacetime) According to Wikipedia, Antimatter is the "mirror image" reflection Matter (almost always): And, "mirror reflection" is Hyperspatial rotation. (In 3D, a 4D Hyper-rotation, about a 2D plane, can be visualized as a "stack of slices", each of which is a 3D (hyper)rotation, about a 1D line, which clearly flips each "slice", "up and over", into its mirror image, as seen in the following figure.) Uploaded with ImageShack.us CONCLUSION: When matter is mired inside of spacetime (e.g. 2D Flatland), it is forced to be either "right-side up" (matter), or "up-side down" (anti-matter). But, out in Hyperspace, matter may rotate, into any "Hyperspatial configuration". These Hyperspatial rotations "transmute" matter into antimatter (et vice versa). Out in Hyperspace, matter exists as an exotic "superposition" of both matter & anti-matter. Uploaded with ImageShack.us ( Dirac Spinor in Matter state "rotates" into Antimatter state: [u d 0 0] → [0 0 u* d*] ) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged RUSHED ROUGH DRAFT: Consider a quantum particle, bound in a potential well, which spans two orthogonal directions (e.g. 2D Square Well, 2D Harmonic Oscillator). Those orthogonal dimensions are completely uncoupled, so that the bound energy levels are of the form En,m, where n,m denote each dimension's separate "sublevel". In particular, energy imparted along one dimension never "mixes" into the other dimension, so that (say) E10,1 never eventually evolves into E5,5. By analogy, in flat spacetime, the (purported) Hyperpotential Well, in the "w" hyperspatial dimension, will be completely uncoupled, mathematically, from all the dynamics in the other, standard space/time dimensions. But, what happens in curved spacetime, where the dimensions are no longer orthogonal ? Might that not "mix" energies, imparted into particles in "standard" ways, from within standard spacetime, into orthogonal Hyperspatial excitations ? If so, that would be seen, as Flavor Oscillations, in high energy particles, in curved spacetime (near gravitating bodies). What would observers see, if (say) high energy electrons, orbiting a compact object, "Flavor Oscillated" into Muons / Tauons, b/c of the curvature of spacetime ? Is there any evidence, which could be construed, for Flavor Oscillations, of non-Neutrino matter, deep down in the curved spacetime near compact objects, as they converted standard-spatial Kinetic Energy, into hyper-spatial "puffed-up-ness" ? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged And, "mirror reflection" is Hyperspatial rotation. (In 3D, a 4D Hyper-rotation, about a 2D plane, can be visualized as a "stack of slices", each of which is a 3D (hyper)rotation, about a 1D line, which clearly flips each "slice", "up and over", into its mirror image, as seen in the following figure.) Uploaded with ImageShack.us CP violation observed in Neutral Kaon (K0) & Neutral B-meson (B0) because both are Hyperspatial excitations of Neutral Pion ([math]\pi^0[/math]) Strange & Bottom quarks are "merely" hyperspatial excitations of Down quarks: S = D* B = D** Thus: Neutral Pion ([math]\pi^0 = d \bar{d}[/math]) Neutral Kaon ([math]K^0 = d \bar{d}^{*}[/math]) Neutral B-meson ([math]B^0 = d \bar{d}^{**}[/math]) Therefore, it is "unsurprising" that CP violations, seen in Neutral Kaons, should also appear in Neutral B-Mesons, since they are essentially the same particles. Flavor Oscillations, in K0 & B0, "merely" amount, to the Hyperspatial excitation being exchanged, between the particle ([math]d[/math]) & anti-particle ([math]\bar{d}[/math]). Apparently, it is more difficult, to hyperspatially excite Anti-matter, compared to Matter, so that the former decays more quickly into the latter. Hyperspatially excited Anti-matter is "more unstable" than hyperspatially excited Matter. This would explain why: Furthermore, from the physics as articulated in that article, it seems as if, during decay, into (anti-)muons, hyperspatial excitation is passed from the (anti-)d*,** quark, to the (anti-)muon -- to wit, from (anti-)matter to (anti-)matter. PREDICTION: Positronium ([math]Ps = e^- e^+ \equiv e \bar{e}[/math]) is the "lepton-equivalent" of the Neutral Pion ([math]\pi^0 = d \bar{d}[/math]). Therefore: if there are "excited hyperstates" of the Neutral Pion, namely Neutral Kaons (singly hyper-excited, [math]K^0 = d \bar{d}^{*}[/math]) & Neutral B-Mesons (doubly hyper-excited, [math]B^0 = d \bar{d}^{**}[/math])... then, there may also be "excited hyperstates" of Positronium, [math]e \bar{e}^{*}[/math] & [math]e \bar{e}^{**}[/math], etc. Likewise, "lepton equivalents" of the Neutral Strange-B-Meson (triply hyper-excited, [math]B_s^0 = d^{*} \bar{d}^{**}[/math]) & Bottomonium (quadruply hyper-excited, [math]\Upsilon^0 = d^{**} \bar{d}^{**}[/math], as well as the Phi Meson (doubly hyper-excited, [math]\phi^0 = d^{*} \bar{d}^{*}[/math]), ought also to exist ([math]\mu^{-} \bar{\tau}^{-} = e^{*} \bar{e}^{**}, \tau^{-} \bar{\tau}^{-} = e^{**} \bar{e}^{**}[/math] ("Tauonium"), as well as [math]\mu^{-} \bar{\mu}^{-} = e^{*} \bar{e}^{*}[/math] ("Muonium")). These might also show "Flavor Oscillations", as the hyper-excitation energy was exchanged & re-exchanged, between both particles in the pair. Furthermore, the Neutral D-Meson ([math]D^0 = c \bar{u} = u^{*} \bar{u}[/math]), being the "up-quark series equivalent" of the Neutral Kaons & Neutral B-Mesons, may also show Flavor Oscillations as well.

The vast majority of the ISM is "warm" (T > 6000 K) to "hot" (T > 10,000 K). How would this affect comets, ~1 lt.yr. out from the nearest star ? The Sun is currently traversing the Local Interstellar Cloud (T ~ 6000 K), through which it has been passing for perhaps 100,000 years. The LIC is embedded at the boundary of the Local Bubble, which is some sort of Supernova Remnant, hot enough to emit X-Rays, through which the Sun has been traveling for 5-10 million years. Why wouldn't these temperatures, equaling or exceeding the surface of our Sun, "boil away" Oort Cloud comets ? The Oort Cloud & Kuiper Belt both lie beyond the Sun's magnetosphere:

Wow, so WF-C might emit photons -- like the the "(electron) absorption & cascade" emissions seen in Ionized Hydrogen Regions of the ISM ?