Index |Next


The rotational displacements of the material proton (a single rotating system of a 2R photon) are 2-1-(1); the rotational displacements of the cosmic proton (a single rotating system of a ½ R photon) are (2)-(1)-1. Both protons can take a positive or negative charge (because both have the necessary space and time displacements). In the material sector, rotational time displacements are predominant, hence the opposing rotational vibrational space displacements (positive charges) are more common; in the cosmic sector, rotational space displacements are predominant, hence the opposing rotational vibrational time displacements (negative charges) are more common.

So we would expect the observed material proton to carry a positive charge (usually) and the observed cosmic or “anti” proton to carry a negative charge. The first observed “anti” proton (in 1955) was created by the bombardment of one proton on another at rest. Either this proton and the subsequent ones created in this manner are actually material protons with negative charges or they are cosmic protons. Certainly the ones that are used in the annihilation experiments are cosmic protons; two material protons would combine to form deuterium, not terminate rotational displacements. Because material deuterium and cosmic deuterium have theoretically identical masses, each of the individual rotating systems has identical mass.

Thus the mass of the material proton and the cosmic proton should be identical! And both should be perfectly stable. The only way to tell them apart would be by their subsequent reaetions. Two cosmic protons would combine to form cosmic deuterium; with two gravitational charges, the mass of this particle comes to 3710.91 Mev, which is elose to the observed mass of the psi particle. This particle then follows the decay sequence described in Larson‘s book Nothing But Motion, chapter 15. So the forthcoming experiment should see what happens when two “anti” protons combine; our predictions are clear.

—Cf. D. B. Larson’s comments in a letter to R. W. Satz, dated Sept. 22, 1988