Why is There More Matter Than Antimatter if both Special Relativity and Subatomic Physics Are well Proven?

Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter based on the union of special relativity with quantum mechanics. As I say on this page Click Here he also predicted magnetic monopoles based on the same blend of physics (and just a bit of sci fi.). If magnetic monopoles are indeed not found, this seems to imply either SR or quantum mechanics is more of worth, and since the latter has many more complex predictions that are not about SR, with no “loose ends” special relativity SR in my belief may only be a subset of subatomic physics. Relativity won’t tell us why the mass of an Lamda or what the S quantum number is, so I believe relativity is incomplete.

Since there are no monopoles found, this seems to be evidence for this, even so you could also say, if QM and subatomic physics are unified, antimatter would be the result. So why is antimatter found and monopoles are not if there is a distinction of SR and subatomic physics?

In my belief mass and energy are not the same, mass is heavy and unifies to oneness, energy is light and more common, fermions and bosons, the balance of opposites that are all around us, hot and cool, plethora and paucity, earth and moon, research and rest so the web allows memory consolidation for our brain!


In SR mass and energy are called equivalent, the mass augmentation of SR is derived from the motion through the field on acceleration, that is, derived from motion. Motion is energy, so what Einstein assumed to be mass energy equivalence in SR thus is actually not the same wrench of the cosmic magicians, matter which is a bit more like mass, and antimatter, more like energy, are mostly not like mass and energy. Thus the matter antimatter conversion to energy predicted by SR and atomic physics seems more like an energy energy conversion to energy than a mass conversion to energy. It’s highly efficient but this would mostly be because the energy energy of matter and antimatter are more at the same level of power than mass to energy, resonating like two antenna of the same wavelength. In truth if mass and energy were exactly the same there would be no way to say if mass were a wrench or a power washer of the displacement of light on the starship windshield.

Equal and opposite energy energy would be more unstable than the more unequal change of mass to energy..


The asymmetry of matter would be caused by the natural asymmetry of mass and energy, not a mysterious force that some invoke to solve the asymmetry. A particle of this type would have to be in most interactions to mediate the asymmetry, and isn’t seen. The Standard Theory (or what's known about it) has no loose ends (at least on the outside, deeper in I believe the fractional charges may move faster than light with higher density of the wave and so on, my hopefully optimal generalization of Maxwell’s idea he used to predict the speed of light based on the density of the medium of the wave. This higher speed motion inside the particles would explain why there are three generations of fermions even though they all have the same electric charge. This logically follows in what I call my physics of GWD General Wave Dynamics because on the outside of each particle the speed of the spin is just the speed of light to obey relativity so well, and deeper in the spin has the faster than light phase change, and more mass arises for the extra motion because all mass and energy are made of motion and it would take more motion than the speed of light to make a heavier electromagnetic particle than an electron. Electrons and the unified speed of light Maxwell used to predict the speed of light and unified electric charges seem to be all relativity allows. ).


There is much evidence for SR, and even so in GWD it’s true superficially, like what‘s seen from a distance at near the speed of light with no force acting in the rest frame of observers motion. In GWD what we see at great remove is only mere looks, not what we feel, real forces, real control. The religions of the world teach that looks are shallow, and aren’t the higher truth. In order to make the acceleration fit in with the idea of relativity’s uniform motion, or actually just description of the motion without cause, Einstein believed no force of gravity exists, and this was the rather comic way he formulated General Relativity. General Wave Dynamics describes all forces by the causes in Dynamics not just a description of motion.

The superficial truth of SR would be because mass and energy are both based on energy conservation, quantity of motion. Thus while there are small bits and washers of antimatter in the machinists shop shelf of science caused by common physics, there isn’t as much antimatter because stability around us needs the asymmetry between mostly unlike action and reaction. In relativity both high or low speed observers are either at rest or in motion, so mass and energy seem the same, so actually matter and antimatter would be equivalent. If mass and energy were exactly the same they would convert right away, instead it takes billions of years in massive stars, and common reactions in our own cosmic reactor nearby take months to hear about when powertrain returns are at the relative motion of the station..

I believe SR being about the speed of light is mostly a thermodynamic explanation of the large middle realm where electromagnetism is in control. At the extremes like for gravity and the strong force, the waves may be faster than light in GWD by way of a phase change. If antimatter is about electromagnetism, and electromagnetism is about the electric charge on the outside of heavy particles and not deeper in where the fractional charges would perhaps have lightened up to travel faster than light, the equivalence of the electric charge being merely reversed for the antimatter would seem to not hold, because by the phase change in order to not gain infinite relativistic mass at faster than light the inner field by definition would not be interacting to the degree of special relativity. Annihilation may seem to not hold for both the electric field and the strong force of heavy particles if SR is only about the electric field. Annihilation would be efficient it seems because the longer range implosion of the opposite electric charges funnels in the atoms to the antiatom, then the strong force itself is multiplied up more by it’s own power. The general implosion would boost the strong force implosion to higher efficiency and the electric field of the particles may be much stronger at close range due to the compression of the field lines by the strong force. The strong force doesn’t implode much, it’s not long range and yet it’s much stronger than the long range electromagnetism, so the centrifugal force of the longer range electric field has more compressed power here to balance out the implosion or there would be unlimited implosion.

The antimatter of the strong force is always created in pair production out of the lower energy electric charges; all the quantum numbers and conservation laws of the lower energy fields plus more are always conserved for higher energies, thus to make heavy antimatter the exact type that is strong force antimatter of the same energy based on the precision of this interaction is the type that is created, a proton and and an antiproton would annihilate by weigh of the strong force being mirrored by way of the electric field. The control of heavy matter and antimatter annihilation would not be superficial to the electric field because the heavy antimatter itself is mediated by way of the electric field, this would in truth perhaps be the mechanism of confinement, going through the lower energy field where relativity holds to reach the higher energy. This would be why there are other combinations of the fractional charges possible that aren't seen, with heavy particles of resulting fractional charge always caused to be of 1 or -1 because of the necessity of the mediation by way of special relativity always being conserved with the speed of light constant at lower power.


An electron is light and a proton is heavy, why not the other way around, why not a + light particle and a heavy -? A heavy negative stable particle seems possible, though it would much change some atomic and most chemical reactions. The main reason the proton is mostly stable as known may be not because of the weak force, the strong force or electromagnetism alone; these forces are the same as for other mesons and the rest of the heavy particles. I think the stability here is caused instead by the threeness of the fractional charges at the lowest energy of the baryons, this seems to be what’s the most unusual about the proton. The three fractional charges would take more power to cause reactions than the rest of the heavy particles. It’s well established that reactions always go slower if the particle has to flip to another, as I say on this page, my complete proton confinement/stability site with more about this.




The proton’s stability thus seems positive, but only because it’s at the right energy to be stable, not because of any fundamental connection with conservation of electric charge. There are lots of negative heavy particles that aren’t stable, that none of them may be so because there is only the stable proton, which turns out to be positive by resonation with just that positive field there at that energy may just be coincidence. I believe the proton is stable because it has three charges, and is coincidentally positive, but the three charges are caused by it being at that energy level of the wheel rotation in 1000 light years. There could indeed have been a stable heavy negative particle if it were not the same mass as the proton for stability.



Here too even if the stable heavy particle was negative, it would need to have another rest mass than the proton for stability. All energy conservation is based on action reaction pairs, if all is in balance all motion would stop, if you press two weights on the Mazda and lift with force, the car will stay higher while you seal the wheels, even so if it dropped on the station, Ouch! For all to be in motion, the two action reaction pairs need to be unlike, mass and energy, so in GWD the mass energy asymmetry is deeper than relativity.

Monopoles are related to the fundamental necessity for all particles to have angular momentum. All known mass flows through time, the spins would be like small clocks, particles have poles when they spin, thus a monopole is tougher to create than a mere negative bubble of the field. The monopole asymmetry may be a more exact asymmetry based on geometry than matter and antimatter, after all leptons aren’t the opposite of heavy particles, the scale of rest mass of the mesons and leptons and other headlights of the speed of light rest in subatomic physics is continuous. If there were always more energy for more mass by the discontinuous quanta of Emc2 instead of the more general F=ma we would expect that much more antimatter always. In other science, life as in evolution is not about exact opposites, rather more small changes in large numbers.

Dirac’s original conception of matter was a large lower energy level where all the mass was and a higher energy negative “sea” of unoccupied states for the antimatter. Why only one sea mostly not two would be because of the lower energy “sea” being held together by the general cohesion of the field, gravity. The lowest energy field to conserve energy in general has to be implosive because if it were in radiance more than cohesion all the mass of the universe would have fizzled out to 0 density. Lack of cohesion causes instability because by what seems to be the mere energy energy equivalence of SR, no mass is more at rest or in motion, even while gravity is less privileged for the earth than the sun, and less privileged for the moon than the earth by rate of fall. Relativity with no definite place of rest like matter and antimatter would seem inherently unstable, so antimatter’s rarity would be against the complete proof of relativity. Neither Newton or Einstein believed that being at rest in the field of the earth was more fundamental than uniform motion, but those with common knowledge often would remark when work is done, labor is more powerful than rest. As evolution holds, the most behaviour of worth is what creates the most real change. If the low energy field is always flexing and holding the higher fields of the mesons and other light and heavy particles together and work is always being achieved, the most natural way is for the main central flow of the energy to be with more work done by change, not energy to energy, energy to mass. (It’s also much easier to convert mass to energy than vice versa, and this would be expected if SR were more superficial than GWD.)

The needed cohesion of the fields would hold the main low energy sea in a central river of flow of the field, mass to energy or energy to mass, but not energy to energy as often. We might indeed think of the central flow of the mass and energy of the particles and forces as the flow of a river, and antimatter as a more rare shore that’s not so easy to reach mostly because it doesn’t flow uphill either. Hold on, You may say, about information and the web to those in complexity math believe that any computer with enough time can solve any problem. If the fields are like a river and a bank this seems like the orbit of the Earth in the old days tough to reach by airplane, but not impossible either. Sooner or later our efficiency at creating antimatter, like cost of payload per pound, may be so much cheaper with improved machines so much that GWD will fail, and (almost) as much matter as antimatter may be created. That certainly seems to be untrue now, because the cost of making antimatter by current methods is estimated at quadrillions to make a gram.

As I say it seems much more that our life was 99% evolved on the land of the world, and while orbit is easy to reach, we won’t live up there for months or year round and around! The cost of living in a space station is estimated to be a million per capita and as it is an explosion caused by a piece of paint could slow the space program’s advance by 25 years, for essentially the same reason about the asymmetry of matter and antimatter in GWD, about efficiency.


Thus antimatter would seem to be limited like travel to Mars by general limits of physics. Here in 2010 we go to orbit as often as we like (within limits) so we may be able to make lots of antimatter, like boosting to orbit, by building tubes (or elevators to orbit) to pump the water from the river to the higher shore. If we could make the tube and pump efficient, perhaps using waves like solitions that don’t lose much energy as they pump the matter into antimatter in the tube, we might be able to create large amounts of it cheaper. And as you see on this site this has recently been patented, with the resonance in the tube being as predicted to “create antimatter from matter with “mere heat”. This will save millions on the cost of using “atom smashers” which cost because among other things they are competing with other uses of the machines to take time making the stuff.


Even as matter is not the same as energy and matter and antimatter are not perhaps equivalent by the slight changes even in SR where the average agreements on the speed of light of many observers will give general agreement about who is at rest or in motion if the history of all the observers are included, we might expect small changes even in matter and antimatter not seen in SR. I believe matter and antimatter in accordance with the distinction of the heavy oneness and many reradiance of GWD might have slight changes in spin not seen in SR, and because creation of matter and antimatter is an energy energy conversion, not matter to matter, the lower energy antiparticles like the positron, being with a lower energy quantum well, would convert the electron to a positron more easily than say a proton to an antiproton. and the rate of decay of an antineutron to an antiproton and positron to be at a somewhat different rate than the matter equivalent.

Antiatoms have much more volatile reactions with matter than mere positrons when they annihilate with electrons. As we would expect if mass and energy is asymmetrical and SR is not the most general, the lighter positron and electron is easier to create and destroy without much labor than the heavier proton and antiproton. If mass and energy were the same, all there was would have the same mass and energy. All particles would have the same mass and the rate of fall on the moon and earth would be the same, and so on. This is my “literal” definition of relativity.


Relativity is a profound idea. A world of complete democracy where all are created equal even so seems uncommon sense without the boss of gravity or king acceleration to optimize. If labor is so worthwhile why would we rest? I believe the small distinctions of matter and antimatter being about the energy energy equivalence of SR would only be in accord with the degree to which observers in SR can find who is actually more at rest or in motion by keeping track of the redshift of all the observers, all with lower redshift observers and higher mass are moving slower by way of conservation of angular and linear flow of the field and the rest are moving faster. By way of the information found by way of the light about who is with acceleration, even in SR with the equal redshift for both the accelerating observer and the slower observer, we have a way to know who is at rest or in motion, as we would expect if SR is incomplete. The more observers with lower redshift and without acceleration, the more probable they're at rest.
Another way of expressing the same idea is that a hill like matter is not exactly the size of the hole where the stuff was removed ("antimatter") from when you dig with your shovel in a field of gravity. The Earth is rounder on the outside and has more room here! There are both mountains and ocean depths but the oceans are generally deeper. Thus the effects like slower rate of radioactivity could be more pronounced with stronger electric or magnetic fields which also have their attractive component (derived from the basic lower energy field.) Relativity is about empty space time, not electromagnetism, so this could be a proof of GWD not relativity.

..

*** BEACH ***

```-

"1999"

- Left Click To Zoom

MORE MIXED MEDIA BY ME ..

..

..K.G..H

..