From: John Berry
Ø If Protons were composed of Muons and Anti-Muons, both short lived and annihilate with each other, how could there be no evidence of Proton Decay? There is plenty of evidence of the aftermath of proton decay following a high energy collision, so I’m assuming you mean a natural or radioactive decay is not seen. But ask yourself what is seen following a high energy proton decay. Yup – muons. And consider the alternative. The standard model proposes 3 fictitious particles called “quarks” …but … quarks have NEVER been directly observed or found in isolation after a collision … so essentially they have zero lifetime and are not really particles at all. Protons do not decay in a cold state, but if accelerated fast enough (as at CERN) – they will decay to 4 muons after a collision. This does not absolutely mean that protons are made of muons, but it is an indication of some kind of cross-identity. You don’t see any quarks. The reason there are 4 instead of 9 probably relates to antimuon annihilation. The point being that the name “quark” is merely a place-marker which will be returned to when physics has a better understanding. If it turns out that the up quark consists of two muons and one antimuon, then we can look at this as Borromean ring stability (Efimov-like state), which is bound so strongly that it does not decay. In short, bound states of antimatter do not necessarily annihilate. It would take too long to tie this into Hotson’s epo model but the pairing of opposites could be intrinsic to all of reality. The epo is more fundamental than the muon, and therefore the proton could be described that way as well.
