Controversial: colectivism of matter-- individualism of antimater

[Kramer]

 

CONTROVERSIAL: “COLECTIVISM” OF MATTER --- “INDIVIDUALIZM “ OF ANTIMATTER.
Don’t judge, and don’t deride me before listening till end.
It is not a thread about sociology, is about physic’s nature of reality, in viewpoint of a lay-man. It’s only a “RHETORICAL’ empty stuff.
In the sequel of my threads about particularity of nature ‘s reality, where I suggest that “unique sub-particles” of matter and anti-matter are the only protagonist of this reality, I have get stuck in mud toward questions I made myself:
Why electron and proton have different mass and radius from each other?
Why the antimatter is so scarce , instead visible mater so abundant?
My alleged hypothesis, permit whatever dimensions of those basic elementary particles, structured by sub-particles, both matter and antimatter.
AND! Why sub-particles of matter have been able to create stabile elementary particles, why the counterpart of sub-particles have not been able to create stabile antimatter elementary particles.

?
Nature must have deviations.
In beginning I have supposed that sub-particles : ( -e / -g ), (+e / -g ) of matter , and ( +e / +g ) and ( -e / +g ) for anti matter, have the same electric ability and gravity ability, in each of those four variants of sub-particle, and for both kind of charges.
This kind of reasoning, results in a row of strict identities, about laws of physics, and this result in an impasse for explanation of certain facts.
Now I go back-ward: For sub - particles of matter gravity ability ( - g ) has a tine predominance toward electric ability. In antimatter sub-particles, this ability is inverse: electric ability has predominance toward gravity ability.
Gravity ability is main cause that coalesce particles of matter, in creation of stabile basic elementary particles electron and proton.
On opposite: antimatter sub-particles must have predominance of electric ability toward gravity ability. That impede creation of anti matter’s elementary particles ( positron and anti proton), where the repellent factor of electric charges is more potent that gravity attraction.
In matter creation, electric influence fade because its ability is neutralized by existence of both charges + , -- .
Gravity factor is the only one that “collective” all amount of matter, in globs.
In opposite antimatter sub - particles have been unable to create elementary antimatter positron and anti proton, and in their “individualism” they are dispersed and fill all the space. ( ? in Dirac’s sea )
They, causally interact with mater, in energetic individual phenomena.

Is their existence, between globs of matter, that hold apart globs of mater and impede the coalesce of all matter in a supper “ collectivism” of matter.
They create an pressure in structure of proton via electric ( + ) charge, so the radius of proton is much less of that of electron.
Instead in electron particle this factor has an opposite effect. And indeed the mass of particle is in inverse proportion with radius in elementary particles.
That is all: a sketch idea.

[John Cuthber]

Rather than saying this at the start

"Don’t judge, and don’t deride me before listening till end."

and this at the end

"That is all: a sketch idea."

you could have saved trouble by saying at the outset that you haven't sorted out what you are talking about.

[Strange]

 

Why electron and proton have different mass and radius from each other?

 

Partly because electrons are fundamental and protons aren't (most of the mass of the proton is the binding energy of the quarks).

 

Why sub-particles of matter have been able to create stabile elementary particles, why the counterpart of sub-particles have not been able to create stabile antimatter elementary particles.

 

Anti-matter particles are just as stable as matter particles. They can combine to form atoms, which are just as stable as matter atoms.

 

As your starting point is erroneous, it is unlikely that any conclusions will be worth anything.

 

 

In beginning I have supposed that sub-particles : ( -e / -g ), (+e / -g )

 

What are e and g?

 

Can you show that this idea makes predictions consistent with observation? If not, why even bother mentioning it? Any idea needs to pass that minimum level of plausibility check before being presented for review.

[John Cuthber]

Strange, that's cheating!

You should have read to the end first.

Like he said "Don’t judge, and don’t deride me before listening till end." where you would have seen this "That is all: a sketch idea."

 

It reminds me of this

http://chasemarch.com/2008/04/fake-test-i-pranked-mt-class.html

Edited December 22, 2013 by John Cuthber

[swansont]

You have brought your particle menagerie up in another thread already. Keep the discussion there.

 

Closed, not controversially