Re: Is any connection between dark matter and unmatter?

Kamala,

No one knows what dark matter is, but it is certainly NOT "unmatter"
for the very simple reason that "unmatter" as described by Florentin
Smarandache does not exist; "unmatter" has NOT been found.  Let me be
clear about this: there is no such thing as "unmatter".

Several questions no doubt now come to mind.  1)Why can't "unmatter" exist?

Smarandache describes two types of "unmatter" in his CERN preprint at
( http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=798551&ln=en ):
the first type "is formed by electrons, protons, and antineutrons;"
the second type "is formed by antielectrons, antiprotons, and
neutrons".  You are probably aware that if a particle and its
antiparticle (say a proton and an antiproton) get close enough to
interact, they will annihilate each other and produce energy (gamma
ray photons, for example).  Smarandache seems to think that protons
and antineutrons will bind together and last long enough to form
"unmatter unatoms" of the first type with electrons.

But protons are made of quarks, two up quarks and one down quark to be
specific.  Antineutrons are made of antiquarks, two antidown
antiquarks and one antiup antiquark.  If a proton and an antineutron
get close enough to form an "unmatter unnucleus", an up quark from the
proton will very quickly (in less than a billionth of a billionth of
a second) annihilate with an antiup antiquark from the antineutron and
destroy the "unnucleus", or a down quark from the proton will
annihilate with an antidown antiquark from the antineutron with the
same result.

2) If "unmatter" is not real, then why is there a CERN preprint about it?

CERN is the European Organization for Nuclear Research, the world's 
largest particle physics laboratory.  It is worthwhile to visit their
web page at ( http://cern.ch ).

The CERN Document Server used to offer authors the ability to post
articles from "external institutes" (that is, not affiliated with CERN)
which were neither peer-reviewed nor moderated.  This kind of preprint
was given an identification code beginning with the letters "EXT".
Notice that Smarandache's "unmatter" preprint is of this type.  On 
8 October 2004, CERN's Scientific Information Policy Board decided
to close the EXT-series.  Authors are now encouraged to submit their 
papers to the relevant class at ( http://arXiv.org/ ), a moderated
preprint server.  All papers in arXiv are available on the CERN 
Document Server.

One can only surmise that CERN's Scientific Information Policy Board
realized that anybody (even someone with no formal training in
physics) could submit a paper (even one containing glaring fundamental
errors) and receive the cachet of a CERN preprint number.  Kamala, you
yourself understandably referred to Smarandache's preprint as a "CERN
article".  It is not a CERN article.  It is a nonsensical paper with
absolutely zero merit, filled with errors that a freshman physics
major would catch, not reviewed by any trained physicists, not
approved by CERN, and merely posted on CERN's Document Server.  Before
8 October 2004, you could have posted an EXT paper there claiming 2+2=5.

3) Who is Florentin Smarandache?

Smarandache himself wrote the profile at
( http://www.ad-astra.ro/whoswho/view_profile.php?user_id=91 ) 
in which he says,
"In physics he proposed the hypothesis that 'there is no speed barrier
in universe' and even more: that the 'speed may be infinite' (called
Smarandache Hypothesis in some Physics Dictionaries)".

Well, here's a physics dictionary: Eric Weisstein's World of Physics
( http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SmarandacheHypothesis.html )
that describes the Smarandache Hypothesis.

"Smarandache (1998) proposed that as a consequence of the
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, there is no speed limit in the
universe (i.e., the speed of light c is not a maximum at which
information can be transmitted) and that arbitrary speeds of
information or mass transfer can occur. These assertions fly in the
face of both theory and experiment, as they violate both Einstein's
special theory of relativity and causality and lack any experimental
support."

In several places, Florentin Smarandache complains about an 
"international mafia" that prevents him from publishing his ideas.
He says he has written to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Amnesty International, and Red Cross.
( http://www.archivefreedom.org/freedom/Smar-1.html )
( http://www.archivefreedom.org/freedom/Mathpower-1.html )
( http://archivefreedom.org/freedom/EEOC.html )

There is no "international mafia" in science.  The community of
scientists embraces new ideas; this is how progress is made.  But not
every new idea is worth considering -- some ideas are patently,
irreconcilably flawed, in other words just plain wrong.  Physicist
John Baez lists some characteristics of theories like Smarandache's at
( http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html ).

Finally, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentin_Smarandache )

"He is sometimes credited with having introduced the so-called
'Smarandache function' S(n), defined as the smallest number such that
n divides S(n)!. However, this function had already been studied by
E. Lucas and J. Neuberg in the 1880s and by A. Kempner in 1918."

4) Does "neutrosophy" theory have any merit?

This is a philosophical idea that "between an entity  and its
opposite  there exist intermediate entities ."
"Thus, between 'matter' and 'antimatter' there must exist someting
which is neither matter nor antimatter, let's call it UNMATTER."
[From  http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=798551&ln=en ]

Since my expertise is particle physics not philosophy, I don't 
feel qualified to answer this question, but one wonders:  If a preprint
contains 'sense' and 'nonsense', can it be said to contain 'unsense'?


--Dr. Randall J. Scalise    http://www.phys.psu.edu/~scalise/