[Kasim]

I was trying to come up with an hypothesis to circumvent the unknown and virtually impossible Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry Mechanism which ensured that matter dominates the universe. If energy splits into equal numbers of alleged matter and antimatter particles, then this mechanism is impossible to work.

So, I developed my hypothesis around the primordial energy splitting into electron-positron pairs, to form a plasma, but no quarks nor gluons. In my hypothesis, positive and negative charges do annihilate; so, a mechanism still needs to be developed to break the stalemate.

So my hypothesis treats electrons and positrons as oppositely charged matter particles i.e. no antimatter. That way, whatever happens we’ll end up with pure featureless energy or a matter-domiated universe as we see today. So, I suggested that the positrons somehow clumped together as composite particle that got orbited by electrons and formed the nucleons and structured like atoms.

My guess is that only protons were formed as they’re the epitome of stability. The protons will have 1 more positron in its centre and its partner electron remains in the plasma. As more and more electrons and positrons got removed from the plasma, there were fewer and fewer of them to annihilate. Hence, the annihilation process gradually came to a halt.

Then the protons collided with each other to form diprotium which sometimes captured an electron from the plasma so that one of the protons became a neutron; or one of the protons loses a positron to become a neutron. These events are still taking place today as per stellar evolution. Interestingly, so is electron capture and positron emission in radioactive isotopes.

Now, it’s understandable that the neutron formed out of electron capture would have the atomic mass unit published for it; but what about the neutron formed out of positron emission? Surely, it’ll have a lower mass than the proton. So, I agree with Jerry about the uniformity of masses of particles.

[Jerry]

Oops! I think I didn’t “word” clearly what I wanted to say in one of those sentences. lol I mentioned how the idea is often accepted, that all “standard” particles have the exact same size, mass, charge, etc. What I meant to ask was if “could the Particle Model view account for how even <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>planets (within the macroscale) also exist at different size, mass, charge, and such?” Or does this scenario bring too much in mind of the “solar system model” of the atom? This “outdated theory”, to me, does continue to seem somewhat understandable. Is Quantum Mechanics said to have disproved it? I’m also quite skeptical about Quantum Mechanics! Anyway, sorry about the mix-up!

[Jerry]

Hi Kasim! Sorry about the slight delay. Quite intriguing thoughts you’ve written. I hadn’t yet heard of the actual interaction of protons and positrons, except only to theorize. Some of what you’ve written I’m unfamiliar with. Why would positive and negative annihilate? Is your hypothesis currently testable? Have you had any experiments yet? I had only recently heard of how protons and electrons, could turn into neutrons (through a process I don’t understand. lol)

[David]

Jerry: we follow Borchardt’s philosophy of infinity and therefore no two particles in the universe are identical. As for an analogy to the solar system, our G1 particle size variation is really not known. It must have a range of sizes. Same for the G2 particle.

[Kasim]

I’m not surprised you’re not familiar with my hypothesis because I haven’t published it as a paper to be peer reviewed. However, I do publish it as an answer to Quora questions and comments. My theory is difficult to test but its advantages are that it does away with the impossible matter-antimatter asymmetry mechanism; and it easily explains electron and positron emission decays i.e. they’re due to mutual electrostatic repulsion which does away with the weak nuclear force which borrows 80 times the mass-energy of the proton, energy that doesn’t exist. Also, once the protons are formed, they can create higher composite matter by nuclear bonding in a similar way to molecular bonding. This means that the strong nuclear force is superfluous as the bonding is electromagnetic.

Because I’m unqualified in science and not an experimentalist but have an aptitude for science, I can’t produce testable theories because there have to be testable predictions to be verified. Now, I only provide qualitative descriptions which I believe are already proven via stellar evolution; electron and positron emission decays; and electron capture. What I’m saying is that my hypothesis explains these phenomena better than the mainstream theories.

As an aside, I think I’ve solved the production of interference patterns in the double-slit experiment (DSX). If we start with the dark and bright bands, and ask what makes a dark band dark? The answer leads to the actual solution. Darkness is the absence of light; so, what happened to the photons that were destined for the dark band? My suggestion is that they were diverted to the bright band. Now we have more photons in the bright band than we should have.

The mainstream answer is that the DSX interference pattern is caused by constructive and destructive interference to form bright and dark patterns respectively. My question is what gets constructed and what gets detroyed? Answer: nothing; photons are simply diverted from what became dark bands to what became bright bands.

The question now is what diverted those photons? I’m now working on a version of the Pilot Wave Theory. Watch this space.