# Antiprotons/Anti particles

## Recommended Posts

If all Protons have antiprotons, Then this cup I hold in my hand, Must have an anti cup, made of anti particles? (a mirror universe).

If all Protons have an anti proton and all electrons have a positron, could this create a homogenous field, where Particles and Antiparticles are joined but separated by some kind of natural Penning trap or Casimir effect/dimension?

All matter on left side, All antimatter on right side, the "92 naturally occurring elements" on left side, has 4232 protons, then if I add up the rest of the Antiprotons(those not involved within the 92 natural elements I get 25444 antiprotons, this is a ratio of 16% matter to 84% dark/antimatter,

dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the Universe, http://en.wikipedia....iki/Dark_matter

##### Share on other sites

If all Protons have antiprotons ...

If all Protons have an anti proton and all electrons have a positron ...

They don't. So the rest of the post is moot.

##### Share on other sites

They don't. So the rest of the post is moot.

In the standard model for describing fundamental particles and interactions, every particle has an antiparticle. For example, the positron is the antiparticle of theelectron. It has identical mass, but has a positive charge. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/antimatter.html

Just because science of today cannot say where all the antimatter is, It does not mean the antimatter is gone, only hidden from us at this present time, Most have no idea what dark matter is, Dark matter could quite easily be Antimatter separated from normal matter by some kind of field, as within my above tables.

##### Share on other sites

All matter on left side, All antimatter on right side, the "92 naturally occurring elements" on left side, has 4232 protons, then if I add up the rest of the Antiprotons(those not involved within the 92 natural elements I get 25444 antiprotons, this is a ratio of 16% matter to 84% dark/antimatter,

"The rest" are not made up of antiprotons.

Just because science of today cannot say where all the antimatter is, It does not mean the antimatter is gone, only hidden from us at this present time, Most have no idea what dark matter is, Dark matter could quite easily be Antimatter separated from normal matter by some kind of field, as within my above tables.

No, it can't. Dark matter doesn't interact in the ways that baryonic antimatter would. It's a non-starter

##### Share on other sites

All matter on left side, All antimatter on right side, the "92 naturally occurring elements" on left side, has 4232 protons, then if I add up the rest of the Antiprotons(those not involved within the 92 natural elements I get 25444 antiprotons, this is a ratio of 16% matter to 84% dark/antimatter,

As matter and antimatter are identical, there must be an equal number of protons on the left as there are anti-protons on the right. Unless, you have carefully managed the numbers to come up with a particular result. (i.e. numerology)

In the standard model for describing fundamental particles and interactions, every particle has an antiparticle.

That means that every type of particle has an antiparticle, not that every instance of a particle has a corresponding antiparticle.

Dark matter could quite easily be Antimatter separated from normal matter by some kind of field, as within my above tables.

As swansont says, that is not possible because dark matter and antimatter have different properties. You can't just wish that away by invoking an imaginary magic field.

And, if you were correct about every proton having an anti-proton, then dark matter would make up 50% of the matter.

##### Share on other sites

As matter and antimatter are identical, there must be an equal number of protons on the left as there are anti-protons on the right. Unless, you have carefully managed the numbers to come up with a particular result. (i.e. numerology)

Here I am showing just a small part of these opposing fields, there are equal numbers of Protons on the left as there are anti on the right. Below multiple joined tables, these multiple tables are how I see the so called "Higgs field". which is perfectly balanced.

That means that every type of particle has an antiparticle, not that every instance of a particle has a corresponding antiparticle.

reference? The "anti particles" we are aware of, create/collect, would be their "anti particles" the "mirror universe" would be aware of create/collect. Which I think may be from elements above z92.

As swansont says, that is not possible because dark matter and antimatter have different properties. You can't just wish that away by invoking an imaginary magic field.

Lets not get into invoking "imaginary fields"(dark matter/dark energy) that are used to make the math fit.

I am not imagining fields any more than anyone who quotes dark matter or dark energy. I see a process that creates fields, which I am trying to understand.

And, if you were correct about every proton having an anti-proton, then dark matter would make up 50% of the matter.

This is just a small part of a larger process, at this moment in "our universes" expansion, there are only 92 naturally occurring elements which is 16% compared to 84%.

Edited by sunshaker
##### Share on other sites

Sunshaker, you should learn first how to create matter and antimatter:

Even our Sun is creating antimatter (positrons), and it's giving 7.65% of energy that everybody receive on the Earth everyday.

ps. There is minute amount of elements with higher atomic number (proton quantity Z) than 2 in Universe.

##### Share on other sites

Why do all of your graphs have that weird swirly effect?

##### Share on other sites

Why do all of your graphs have that weird swirly effect?

That reminds me "hypnosis spiral S/F"..

Edited by Sensei
##### Share on other sites

Sunshaker, you should learn first how to create matter and antimatter:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92274-say-you-believe-or-else/?p=893302

Even our Sun is creating antimatter (positrons), and it's giving 7.65% of energy that everybody receive on the Earth everyday.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85656-solar-fusion-neutrinos-and-age-of-solar-system/

Nice read, which I mostly agree with, I will never have the math/equations, my brain see these energies in pictures, from ev mev gev, all flowing within each other, I try to show this the only way I know how, which is with diagrams, the same with these "extended periodic tables", which I do not see as "elements" but the energy of those "elements, and each Proton is a fractal of these tables.

ps. There is minute amount of elements with higher atomic number (proton quantity Z) than 2 in Universe.

Not quite sure what you are saying here, I have elements up to z172/z173, but this is just one level of many.

Why do all of your graphs have that weird swirly effect?

This "swirly effect", is how I try to show what happens when these opposing tables/quarks meet, positive/negative, dipole torque, Each "element" as an opposing "anti element", the "tables" overlap at each new group "alkali metals", so every positive/anti alkali metal overlaps, this is where the "swirly effect"/expansions begin, and expand out through the tables,

I see anti matter and normal matter then separated by some kind of Casimir effect/Penning trap(, This stops matter/anti matter annihilating each other.

The first opposing element in table are z1(hydrogen) to -z172, this to me, is the outer shell/field of a Proton, where we find the energies up to 173GeV(standard model).

simplified diagram z1 to -z172

here is my early attempt at showing the formation of Proton and Neutrons within this fractal element field. Neutron 1up/2down quarks, proton 2up/1down quark.

I see the Proton as a fractal of ALL ELEMENTS+ANTI ELEMENTS.

Edited by sunshaker
##### Share on other sites

Nice read, which I mostly agree with, I will never have the math/equations, my brain see these energies in pictures, from ev mev gev, all flowing within each other,

In other words, it it just nonsense you have made up and nothing to do with science.

##### Share on other sites

In other words, it it just nonsense you have made up and nothing to do with science.

No, I understand most of the math, I know what most equations mean, but I believe we overcomplicate science with equations that very few people understand, all my tables represent the proper energies within the so called standard model, All my electron sequences are right, the energies for all quarks/particles are right, It explains the hidden dark energies to the exact %.

I am just finding it hard at the moment to define this field that cloaks anti matter from matter. It is why I try to ask questions, but get replies like yours. that offer nothing but to derail my thread.

I am ready to answer questions, but tired of replying to attacks of "nonsense", just because it is something you do not understand.

From such a "senior liked member", I expect more from you. I do not come to these forums to argue, I come because I believe there are some who can help me understand "parts of my model", that needs more of a "standard approach".

##### Share on other sites

No, I understand most of the math, I know what most equations mean, but I believe we overcomplicate science with equations that very few people understand,

Please provide a single example of a published work where an author intentionally used a 'complicated' equation when a simpler one would have done the exact same job.

I think you'll find that in the vast majority of times, the complication is needed for accuracy. People aren't just making complicated equations for ego, to look smart, or to hide things.

They are complicated because the phenomena being described is complicated. And that complication is needed for accuracy. This is a lesson you haven't learned in your years of posting here. You have to back up your math with actual evidence of it working... i.e. accuracy. Simplifying when you can't leads to erroneous conclusions.

##### Share on other sites

Please provide a single example of a published work where an author intentionally used a 'complicated' equation when a simpler one would have done the exact same job.

I think you'll find that in the vast majority of times, the complication is needed for accuracy. People aren't just making complicated equations for ego, to look smart, or to hide things.

They are complicated because the phenomena being described is complicated. And that complication is needed for accuracy. This is a lesson you haven't learned in your years of posting here. You have to back up your math with actual evidence of it working... i.e. accuracy. Simplifying when you can't leads to erroneous conclusions.

I think you miss understand me,

I do not think an author "intentionally" complicates the math, I agree with your statement 100%, And I greatly respect those that do the math.

I am afraid I do not have that skill set to any high degree, even though, I still enjoy reading math and physics papers, which would be lost without the math.

I just think there are other ways to interpret the data we have collected, which is what I am trying to do,

I, in no way shape or form, belittle the hard work needed to achieve those levels in math, ideas like mine, can only happen when others have done the math first.

.

##### Share on other sites

I just think there are other ways to interpret the data we have collected, which is what I am trying to do,

Why do you think that someone with limited knowledge and math ability is going to find a better model than people with the relevant expertise? Would you expect a plumber to make a better heart surgeon than someone who has had years of training and experience?

##### Share on other sites

Why do you think that someone with limited knowledge and math ability is going to find a better model than people with the relevant expertise? Would you expect a plumber to make a better heart surgeon than someone who has had years of training and experience?

You should have more belief in yourself, Your bitterness comes through in many of your posts lately.

3rd child?

##### Share on other sites

You should have more belief in yourself, Your bitterness comes through in many of your posts lately.

3rd child?

I agree with the others. The question deserves a better answer than attacking the character there.

I think I can confidently state that almost all the researchers wish that the data led to easier-to-understand mathematics. And sometimes a simplification is found. But a great deal of the time, the complexity is there to be accurate, as I wrote above. 'Other ways to interpret the data' doesn't change the need for accuracy; demonstrate any example when it has.

In fact, oftentimes the more complex math led to a very high level of accuracy. See, for example, the precession of Mercury and the theory of relativity. No amount of other ways of intpreting the data from a Newtonian viewpoint would work -- quite a many very bright students tried. It wasn't until the large increase in complexity did the accuracy come out.

Edited by Bignose
##### Share on other sites

Nice read, which I mostly agree with, I will never have the math/equations, my brain see these energies in pictures, from ev mev gev, all flowing within each other, I try to show this the only way I know how, which is with diagrams, the same with these "extended periodic tables", which I do not see as "elements" but the energy of those "elements, and each Proton is a fractal of these tables.

Then maybe you should learn how to convert Joules to electron Volts, and vice versa?

Not quite sure what you are saying here, I have elements up to z172/z173, but this is just one level of many.

I was talking about abundance of elements.

Hydrogen-1 is nearly 74%, while Helium-4 is nearly 24%. The rest is pretty meaningless minute amount.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

scroll to section "Abundance of elements in the Universe"

##### Share on other sites

I agree with the others. The question deserves a better answer than attacking the character there.

There was no question, Strange's "questions", where just veiled attacks on my character and mental abilities, nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I think I can confidently state that almost all the researchers wish that the data led to easier-to-understand mathematics. And sometimes a simplification is found. But a great deal of the time, the complexity is there to be accurate, as I wrote above. 'Other ways to interpret the data' doesn't change the need for accuracy; demonstrate any example when it has.

In fact, oftentimes the more complex math led to a very high level of accuracy. See, for example, the precession of Mercury and the theory of relativity. No amount of other ways of interpreting the data from a Newtonian viewpoint would work -- quite a many very bright students tried. It wasn't until the large increase in complexity did the accuracy come out.

And I think complex math, will eventually be needed within my model, I am not disagreeing with the standard model, I just believe there is another way to look, at how it all fits into a repeating fractal system.

Then maybe you should learn how to convert Joules to electron Volts, and vice versa?

Nice video, quite easy to follow, perhaps I should start converting these energies myself, But I tend to use online converters.

I was talking about abundance of elements.

Hydrogen-1 is nearly 74%, while Helium-4 is nearly 24%. The rest is pretty meaningless minute amount.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

scroll to section "Abundance of elements in the Universe"

I see, yes I understand the abundance of elements,I have spent years looking into the abundance of elements within the universe, stars, planets, ourselves, I have looked into the abundance of elements within almost anything you can think of.

For a while I have been working on the "Oddo Harkins rule", and how this fits into my system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oddo%E2%80%93Harkins_rule

##### Share on other sites

So why do you think you're more qualified than the people who do this stuff as their career?

##### Share on other sites

So why do you think you're more qualified than the people who do this stuff as their career?

Be careful with this line of reasoning. This is also straying on ad hom attacks.

I don't give a wit about his qualifications. I care about results. So far, the most results have been some swirly animated gifs, and he hasn't demonstrated anything that his model does anywhere as near that as the 'complex' math that he apparently doesn't like.

But these questions need to be more specific to his level of understanding the current data and models, and not his qualifications.

sunshaker, what would really help here is a plot showing the current best data, the current predictions made by the best model in the literature, and then your predictions. All on the same plot. So we can see how good your model's predictions are to the other models and the data.

Edited by Bignose
##### Share on other sites

sunshaker, what would really help here is a plot showing the current best data, the current predictions made by the best model in the literature, and then your predictions. All on the same plot. So we can see how good your model's predictions are to the other models and the data.

!

Moderator Note

More rigor. Otherwise this thread will be closed.

##### Share on other sites

And I think complex math, will eventually be needed within my model, I am not disagreeing with the standard model, I just believe there is another way to look, at how it all fits into a repeating fractal system.

For a while I have been working on the "Oddo Harkins rule", and how this fits into my system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oddo%E2%80%93Harkins_rule

The underlying issue here is that you're dealing with patterns, rather than models which describe interactions. The Oddo Harkins rule is unsurprising once you understand why even numbers of nucleons is preferred (much like other patterns in physics, like the various emission spectra series for Hydrogen, before the Bohr model was developed). The pattern is not the model. You need a model.

You've presented no independent evidence that even the pattern means anything. No way to test it, and there are plenty of reasons why it's wrong by simple inspection. It's already been pointed out that your premise that all protons have antiprotons s false. The imbalance of matter and antimatter is one of the big open questions of cosmology. It's not clear what you mean by atoms other than the 92 naturally occurring elements, but that doesn't matter — there are no antiparticles in any nuclei you can find in nature or synthesize in the lab (with the exception of Hydrogen, where they have made a handful of anti-atoms)

Your mention of the Casimir force or a Penning trap is seemingly a haphazard application of terminology — you explain nothing about how you might be able to form a trap, or why the matter and antimatter in an atom wouldn't annihilate. You're missing all the details. This isn't magic. You can't say "Penning trap" and have that explain anything with a wave of your hands.

Your charts are confusing and you don't explain anything about them. All I can discern is that they are based on some numerology. Not a speck of science. You admit to not having much math in them, and yet models must be based on math (and when someone calls you out on this you pretend it's a personal attack)

##### Share on other sites

sunshaker, what would really help here is a plot showing the current best data, the current predictions made by the best model in the literature, and then your predictions. All on the same plot. So we can see how good your model's predictions are to the other models and the data.

This is a good idea, and something I shall work on, below a couple of my calculations to known data, these are just a few, until i work out the best way to show in graph;

standard mine

elements z118 z172

2 8 18 32 32 18 8 2 8 8 18 18 32 32 18 18 8 8 2

proton 938.272 MeV 930.232 MeV

natural occurring 15.5 % 16 %

matter

dark matter 84.5% 84%

Top quark 173.34 GeV 173 GeV

W bosons 80.4 GeV 80 GeV

Z boson 91.2 GeV 91-92 GeV

Higgs 125.09 GeV 126 GeV

Diameter 1.68-1.74 1.73

proton femtometers femtometers

Your mention of the Casimir force or a Penning trap is seemingly a haphazard application of terminology — you explain nothing about how you might be able to form a trap, or why the matter and antimatter in an atom wouldn't annihilate. You're missing all the details. This isn't magic. You can't say "Penning trap" and have that explain anything with a wave of your hands.

This is something I am trying to understand, I "see" the process, which is alright if I don't need to show to anyone else, I have ideas how to explain it, but I first need to understand "dipole moments" within the system, I don't yet want to say "This is how it works", It is why I started this thread to see thoughts on whether all "PARTICLES" have an anti particle, "connected but separated(entanglement).

Your charts are confusing and you don't explain anything about them. All I can discern is that they are based on some numerology. Not a speck of science. You admit to not having much math in them,

My "charts" are but two extended periodic tables, z1 to z172, you may not agree with them above z118, these charts show the correct proton/electron sequence for each element, the steps within the tables are the groups,

Each group begins with an Alkali element: lithium, sodium, potassium etc "outer electron shell 1". this is where opposing tables overlap. Each element on left as a opposing element the add to 172+1.

It's not clear what you mean by atoms other than the 92 naturally occurring elements,

The 92 elements are coloured in the table to their chemical group(left corner), these are the known 16% universal matter, z1 hydrogen to z 92 uranium.

I shall now spend some time, understanding this Casimir effect/Penning trap, I have ideas what cause these fields "homogeneous axial magnetic field and an inhomogeneous quadrupole electric fields" within my system.

So I shall now leave it until I can show some type of graph as Bignose suggested.

## Create an account

Register a new account