To Jones' point regarding annihilation and disintegration ... These are not the same. Annihilation is the total conversion of entities having mass into energy. Disintegration is the breakup of a composite particle into its constituents.
To Eric's question ... A proton is a composite particle. The sub-nucleonic structure of a proton or neutron (or muon) is arguable. Bohr believed we would never understand the structure of a nucleus due to the uncertainty principle. We have had to infer a lot from indirect experimental results. Understanding the sub-nucleonic world will be even harder. Hotson believed that electrons are positrons were one and the same; simply out of phase in multi-dimensional space. He believed that protons and neutrons were constituted of epos that were orthogonal in 10 dimensional space. Interestingly the size of an epo is the size of a proton or a neutron. Another coincidence is that charge only comes in +/- the charge of the electron. Why would the all charged nuclear particles only have the charge of an electron? If the proton were composed of epos less one electron, it would have a net positive charge of the electron. The quark descriptions having +2/3e or -1/3 e charge seems contrived. Hotson argues using Occam's razor that it makes more sense that there is only one particle (the electron) and all other particles are made from the electron and its dimensionally out of phase image, the positron. On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > *From:* Eric Walker > > Protons are fermions. At the LHC, they routinely collide protons. These > protons are said to disintegrate. > > > > Note as well that the Pauli exclusion principle applies to fermions of > the same kind and quantum numbers. If Hotson argues that an electron and a > positron would normally obey the Pauli exclusion principle, he is not > applying a principle of mainstream physics that had prior to that been > overlooked. > > Yes. And beyond that - we can integrate Hotson to some degree within the > standard model by assigning his theory to applicability in a more > fundamental dimension, instead of 3-space. His BEC is next to impossible > to fully reconcile as a physical reality in 3-space, but it fits into a > context of a foundation-dimension (first dimension ?). > >
