Categories
Physics

Anti-Ness Terminology Sucks

Let’s start with a short conversation on reddit r/particlephysics.

Q : Is it possible that when we know exactly how anti-ness is implemented by nature that we will find that we may have reversed some polarities in our nomenclature? For example, with the knowledge of anti-ness might we find that the down quark, really should have been called the down anti-quark and vice versa? This might be a meaningful distinction in multi-quark structures like the proton or neutron. Do the three quarks in each nucleon definitely not present what nature implements as anti-ness? Can we really differentiate between ‘pro-ness’ and anti-ness or is this more a vague concept with a few points of connection to theory?

R : All labels are arbitrary, but some are useful. What we use is useful, what you propose is not. Different types of quarks can convert to each other but not to antiquarks, so keeping these together makes sense. You could argue that we should call leptons anti-leptons and vice versa, as the difference between baryon number (from quarks) and lepton number is conserved “stronger” than the sum. Swap the label and now we can say the sum of baryon number and lepton number is conserved.

Despite particle physicists being perplexed about missing anti-matter, let’s alleviate the mysticism right away — we are in no danger of an imbalance of electrinos and positrinos in the universe. It is difficult to imagine that on a large scale the distribution is anything other than 50% electrinos and 50% positrinos. However, still there are always questions about where are the anti-particles? Well, if leptons are really anti-particles that will do a lot to close any perceived gap.

The “anti-particle” terminology is a disaster. First off, what is the opposite of anti-ness? I’m waiting…… Pro-ness? I guess, but the vernacular is to omit the ‘pro’. So we have particles and anti-particles and never the ‘twain shall meet. Ha! I think I rather like the idea that electrons and neutrinos are anti-particles while quarks are pro-particles. I hope physicists come up with a terminology that isn’t loaded with historical memes. I get it that they need a terminology that describes opposites. It’s sort of like helicity in a way, left vs. right.

I have absolutely no clue about the proportions of electrons, neutrinos, and quarks produced by super high energy events (e.g., supermassive black hole jets). Shall we imagine that half the Noether cores are pro and the other half anti? Shall we imagine that of all the stable fermions, 25% are electrons, 25% up quarks, 25% down quarks, and 25% neutrinos? Those are symmetric distributions in a sense. However, in a larger sense it doesn’t really matter.

The vast concentration of electrinos and positrinos in the universe are in two forms : 1) spacetime aether, aka dark matter, aka spacetime, aka Bose-Einstein condensate, aka quantum vacuum and 2) black hole interiors. I wonder what the next big category is by point charge count? Perhaps photons and neutrinos. Everything else in the middle accounts for a small percentage of matter and energy. Note that these top categories balance electrinos and positrinos precisely.

  • Spacetime aether : This is the relatively low energy detritus of the universe. It seems to me that it is likely a collection of tired photons (6:6) and tired neutrinos (6:6) and perhaps a superstructure they form of two pro and two anti Noether cores, i.e., a 12:12 structure. Not sure what that maps to in quantum physics — definitely dark matter, perhaps a shielded Higgs, or a graviton? I dunno. You really have to look at all prior theories as only having vestiges of the correct narrative. Everyone just needs to relax and chill.
  • Black hole interiors : Well presumably black holes are sucking in at least some excited spacetime aether as well as pro and anti Noether cores in structures. What do they all ultimately smash down to? A Planck core of point charges with closest packing? Is there any pro and anti-ness in a Planck core? I don’t think so. That information as well as all other information is lost. Zero entropy is zero entropy. Could the spin of a black hole influence structure formation percentages? If so, we would detect a difference around the north and south jets, and I’ve never heard of that.
  • Photons : these structures ARE a Noether core (3:3) counter-rotating with an anti-Noether core (3:3) so they balance pro-ness and anti-ness au natural.
  • Neutrinos : let’s imagine neutrinos as an anti-Noether core (3:3) surrounded by a neutral personality layer (3:3). Is the personality layer like a super low energy Noether core? Neutrinos must throw off some interesting electromagnetic radiation, but I have no idea if that is covered by theory or measurement.
  • Electrons, Up Quarks, Down Quarks : This is probably a tiny fraction of the point charges in the universe.

Sometimes I wonder if the right hand rule and charge attraction/repulsion are the only asymmetries in the universe.

J Mark Morris

J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts

By J Mark Morris

I am imagining and reverse engineering a model of nature and sharing my journey via social media. Join me! I would love to have collaborators in this open effort. To support this research please donate: https://www.paypal.me/johnmarkmorris

https://johnmarkmorris.com
https://twitter.com/J_Mark_Morris
https://www.reddit.com/r/NPQG/
https://www.facebook.com/NPQG/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmarkmorris/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s