return to homepage The Great Misunderstanding of Antimatter
return to updates
by Miles Mathis
In an article at the New York Times from May 17, 2010, we are told of a discovery at Fermilab of a 1% overproduction of muons above anti-muons. This data is used both by the scientists and by the science writers to speculate why anti-matter seems to be out-produced by matter, even in a small short experiment like this.
It is a fair question, but the answers suggested are all very deficient. Let us start at the beginning. In the first sentence of the article, we find this:
Physicists at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory are reporting that they have discovered a new clue that could help unravel one of the biggest mysteries of cosmology: why the universe is composed of matter and not its evil-twin opposite, antimatter.
Problem is, we have no data or evidence that antimatter is an evil-twin opposite, so we are swamped by bad writing and thinking from the get-go. That bad thinking quickly escalates when we are told
Equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created in the Big Bang and then immediately annihilated each other in a blaze of lethal energy, leaving a big fat goose egg.
But again, we have no evidence or indication of that. We are told that the basic precepts of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics imply this, but they don't. They only imply symmetries and conservation laws. We also have no evidence or data showing that matter and anti-matter annihilate one another. Our experiments only show that when matter and anti-matter collide, our machines cannot detect any residue. However, since our machines are measuring E/M residue, it is possible that both the matter and anti-matter have simply stopped acting in a detectable manner. This is what I have proposed, and it is not a far-out proposal in any way. For instance, if E/M detection is ultimately a matter of spins or angular momenta, then both matter and anti-matter could become undetectable simply by losing all spins. In this way, colliding anti-matter and matter cancel spins, which greatly reduces energies, and completely reduces detection in a magnetic field. But non-spinning “nuts” of the particles remain, which can then be re-accelerated and re-spun by the field. Physicists just aren't monitoring the field for long enough to see them re-emerge. If this is true, anti-matter loses much of its mystery and malevolence.
A reader wrote in and complained that we do detect residue from these collisions, in the form of photons. But that of course confirms my theory once more, since anything stripped of enough spins can become a photon. If you strip three spins from a proton, you get an electron; strip three spins from an electron and you get a high-energy photon. Strip 7 spins from a proton or anti-proton, and you get a photon. These collisions of matter and anti-matter are not destroying matter, they are stripping spins and spin energies by matching left spins to right spins. We have spin cancellations, not matter destruction. And since I have shown that there are many species of proton and anti-proton, depending on the way the spins stack, the cancellations can vary, leaving us with bigger or smaller photons as the "nuts".
I have also shown that anti-matter is just a reversed z-spin, which makes it even less mysterious. Anti-matter is not some spooky force arrayed against matter, it is simply another form of matter. Most simply, it is matter upside-down.
But the question remains, “Why an overproduction of matter here? Why not equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, to maintain symmetry?” The answer has to do with the field of the Earth, not any universal imbalance. All these experiments are taking place on Earth, of course, and these scientists completely ignore that. We have no compelling evidence that the universe as a whole is out of balance, so the question is getting ahead of the data. Yes, we have some data that can be push-interpreted to show an imbalance, but all such data can be interpreted in other ways, always with more logic. The only real question implied by the big bang model is “why didn't matter and anti-matter cancel one another from the first moments?” If we had initial symmetry, they should have cancelled one another immediately, right? No. They cancel only if they collide, and if the bang model is true even in its fundaments, it implies that all motion was out from a center, radially. Which of course implies that there would be few or no collisions early on. Only when later parts caught up with earlier parts, for reasons unknown, would collisions begin to take place. And even then, it is not clear they could ever be "head-to-head" collisions. If all motion is out from the center in a Big Bang, then how do you get head-to-head collisions?" In any case, we only have to postulate the smallest bit of out-of-roundness to obtain a working universe. Quantum dynamics and Relativity, as well as classical mechanics, tell us of conservation laws and symmetries. They do not tell us that the universe must be perfect or perfectly spherical at any time. And they certainly do not tell us that matter and anti-matter cancel when one catches up to the other. No, they only cancel when they have linear vectors that are opposite. A Bang cannot create such vectors.
But all that is speculative. As I said, we have no evidence that matter predominates on a universal scale, so we do not have to show why it does. We only have evidence it does locally, as in this local experiment. I have shown that it does so simply because the local charge field is not symmetrical. The fundamental E/M field or charge field of the Earth is not balanced left and right, which must throw off any experiment like this. If you haven't read my other papers, you will say, “What do you mean by this charge field?” The charge field is what mediates the charge force felt between protons and electrons and so on. Currently, this force is represented by nothing but field lines, and when we ask for a mechanics under the force, we are told it is caused by virtual photons or messenger photons. These photons act by messenging between the particles somehow, and the same virtual photons can cause either attraction or repulsion. I have shown what a farce that is, as a matter of physics, and have proposed instead a field of real photons mediating charge. This field of photons is the charge field.
I have also shown that these charge photons can have real spin themselves, and this spin is able to explain magnetism in a mechanical way, without any obscuring math or slippery theory. I have also shown that this photon spin can be either left or right, so we have photons and anti-photons to work with. Anti-photons are simply spinning opposite to photons, or are upside down relative to photons. In a balanced field, you would find an equal number of up and down spinners, and the magnetic field would be flat. In other words, you would have electrical effects without magnetic effects. This is what I propose is happening on Venus, as well as many other places. But locally, this charge field can become unbalanced, with more photons than anti-photons. In that case, a feedback mechanism is created, and you end up with a magnetic field that is almost as strong as the electrical field. Over time, most anti-photons are re-spun into photons, and the magnetic field becomes strong. A magnetic field is a photon or charge field that has become non-symmetrical, as a matter of spin. This is what has happened on the Earth, as we know from the Earth's strong magnetic field and magnetosphere and so on.
This means that the lack of symmetry is only local, not universal. As near as Venus, the charge field is much more symmetrical. Even the Moon shows much more charge symmetry than the Earth, so we are dealing with local asymmetries.
This explains the muon experiment, because the muon experiment is taking place in the magnetic field of the Earth. Locally, we have a preponderance of photons over anti-photons, and this is causing the over-production of muons directly. I predict that if the experiment was extended over longer times, the over-production would be even greater. This is because mechanically we are seeing the photon field suppressing all the spins of the anti-muons. The anti-muons are trying to swim in a sea of photons, and like counter-turning cogs, the photons are stopping the spins of the muons. As the spins are slowed and then stopped, the anti-muons appear to disappear from the experiment. The machines can detect only spinning particles, and particles that stop spinning appear to stop existing. The muons and anti-muons are like fisheggs hatched in a sea. But the sea only supports the muons. It does not support the anti-muons. The spins of the muons are matched by the photons, so the muons continue to spin and to thrive. The spins of the anti-muons are countered by the photons, and over time they will stop. Not only that, but given enough time, the anti-muons will become muons. The photon field will cause a complete reversal of spin.
In this article, we are told that the muon overproduction may be an instance of CP parity violation, but I have already shown in my paper on beta decay [last part] that CP parity is much easier to explain with spins than with quarks. Given my charge field, we no longer need neutrinos, neutrino oscillation, or CP parity or any violations. All the known data is quickly explained with spinning photons. Specifically, CP parity violations are not symmetry violations at all, since the local charge field was never symmetrical to start with. Nothing has been violated, since symmetries are universal symmetries, not local symmetries. There is no law or rule that says the local charge field must be symmetrical. This means that beta decay (and kaon decay, etc.) is not a symmetry violation, it is simply a sign pointing to a local charge field that is magnetic to some degree. Meaning, things like beta decay are asymmetrical simply because the charge field of the Earth is asymmetrical. Therefore, there is no need to explain universal asymmetry or universal violation of symmetry. Our data shows only local asymmetry.
Doubters will tell me that energy conservation cannot be maintained by a charge field of real photons, since spinning photons must have a radius and mass and so on. If the charge field has mass and energy, then why do protons not lose energy in emitting this field? But I have already answered that. Particles like protons do not evaporate in emitting the charge field because they recycle it. Protons are not little gods, creating photons from nothing, they are little engines, recycling the charge field with their own spins. The spin and shape of the proton allows it to create intakes and exhausts, like any other engine, and this recycling of the field does conserve energy.
Finally, we are told,
The observed preponderance is about 50 times what is predicted by the Standard Model, the suite of theories that has ruled particle physics for a generation, meaning that whatever is causing the B-meson to act this way is “new physics” that physicists have been yearning for almost as long.
It is nice that the Standard Model admits it cannot explain this one, but I am not convinced that physicists are actually “yearning for a new physics.” They have done all they can to suppress new physics, short of a lopping off of heads. This has been true since the Copenhagen interpretation, in the late 1920's. University physicists have been forbidden from looking closely at the electron and photon for almost a century. They have also been forbidden from looking closely at the cause of charge. This is why they haven't figured out anti-matter, and still see it as a species of demon. With no mechanical explanation of charge, these physicists were in no position to see what was causing the difference in matter and anti-matter. They still don't have any idea, beyond their little plusses and minuses. The quark model has allowed them to fit anti-matter into the gauge field, by filling holes in the math, but as a matter of mechanics, anti-matter is a white region. Dr. Brooijmans tells us in the article that the cause of muon asymmetry is probably a new particle, and toots his horn one more time for the Large Hadron Collider. Neal Weiner says the same thing, crowing that “the LHC is going to produce some fantastic results.” But this is nothing but PR. None of the smaller colliders could answer questions like this, and none of the larger ones will either. Why? Because you cannot answer questions that are in the wrong form. A question that is mis-stated can persist for centuries, as we have seen with unification. In the same way, the LHC cannot be any help here, as long as the fundamental theories are wrong. Machines cannot correct theories. Machines can only provide data. Until physics understands what anti-matter is, and what the charge field is, it cannot hope to solve its problems. Physics does not need bigger machines, it needs more rigorous thinkers.
If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.