the god particle

Firstly matter-antimatter asymmetry is one of the biggest issues in particle physics, and the main focus of the LHC. That said, all charged particles come with both charges. If you reverse time, charge and parity, you get the antiparticle (CPT symmetry is conserved).

So whatever charges the quarks had, there would always be ones of opposite charge.

As it happens, a couple of ups and a down form a stable configuration. Two or three ups or downs don't. And that is why the quarks found in nucleons have two charges.

The question of why almost all the quarks in the Universe are up and down quarks and not anti-up and anti-down quarks is believed to be due to matter-antimatter asymmetry and not only do I not fully understand it, even those who understand a lot more don't. There are two known asymmetries, I think, but they aren't enough to explain the imbalance.

There has been literally no change to the list of particles in that diagram since I was a student around 1980, I believe. More quantitative information (and detection of a few of the predicted particles at that time, latterly the Higgs, earlier the Top quark) have merely fleshed it out. 

I agree strongly with 87654321 here.

A big problem with the preon concept is that it explains no experimental results that are unexplained without them. This makes them a very tentative idea, as yet not exposed to the scientific method.

One. And 87654321 posted it.

Odd. I've tried to post here twice, yet I could swear I was responding to another discussion entirely. Deleted my comments. Must be getting late. Perhaps ct has flipped sign on me.

Crikey, the discussion evolved into a real one, & I was responding to prior triviality. This has gone in exactly the direction I had hoped. Good stuff. Apparent breaking of symmetry has always been baffling to me.

By symmetry, I simply mean matter/antimatter distribution, not other quantum level properties.

Some form of the Elroch quote above (beginning with "A big problem...") should be shared with members in the common notes area. It is strong. It is how scientists think. It should be shared.

Fine, lets try and share how science should work.  The only thing different there seems to be the word preon.  So how many preons make up a particle ?  Or, Elroch also said he agrees, and that preons make little sense.   Is that what you mean by science working well ?   Can you explain better your statements ?  

Are you sure  we should share ?   You did say;

" I have few ideas, and admittedly little knowledge, as I haven't been following the literature in this area for some time. Before I plunge in too deeply, I will try to catch up there. "

Many comments are needed.

Normal matter and dark matter do interact. Firstly by gravity. Secondly, possibly through another force: my recollection is that there is significant evidence of this now.

Also, it's not 50:50. There's more dark matter. This is now known to quite high accuracy.

There is still a need to explain why there is more matter than antimatter (i.e. lots of electrons, up quarks and down quarks, very few positrons and anti-quarks). So the laws of physics need to explain asymmetric production. Currently, I believe the known asymmetries are not entirely adequate to do this. I may be out of date on this.

"First" implies totally ordered time. The real Universe only provides a partial order, due to the local Lorentz symmetry (i.e. because of the finite speed of light). As a result, it is reasonable for a large number of events to be incomparable temporally. This means they have a space-like relationship (neither is in the past causal (light) cone of the other).

Same for "second", "third".

As for the distribution of matter and dark matter, there is a lot of research going on concerning this, using supercomputers and detailed information about the CMB.

Goodnight all. Do read good science. Wiki has lots of pointers. 

In an attempt to return to difficult to understand reality, you mentioned, Elroch, that the only difference between matter and antimatter particles is the temporal (direction in time) one. This seems controversial to me. Can you please elucidate on that?

Dear RPaulB, My admission of current ignorance is not one of future knowledge. Let's play friendly here. I may end up with little to contribute on this, true. My intent is to attempt to educate myself to a point from which I can. Peace.

And my bloody point was about sharing the way scientists think with the broader group, outside of this forum. My personal level of understanding a particular topic shouldn't impede the delivery of an excellent disposition to the broader public, correct?

Peace.  Your here to learn.  I'm here to teach.  Why ?  I thought people here might like to know why gravity is stronger some places more than others.  So far no one has asked why.   My way to teach is to ask questions so that I may evaluate where "we" are.    You and others may not learn that way,  True.  That means you can't learn for me.  However , if you  would like to try, I ask how many preons  are needed to build a particle.  If the answer is I do not know, then I tell you, and next you ask why ?  If  your answer is different , we try to understand the differences,  and ask more questions, if the same, we go on to learn more.  But we are both wrong if no one is here to learn.   One week later:  seems I'm wrong again, interesting considering how much could have been learned judging from the notes through out that week from 3 members. Take the note below.  If gravity were the same every where there would be no relative motion from gravity.      If you should answer;

 " I have no reason to believe it is, nor that it would make any sense for it to be."    that is exactly as I expected,   AND    why a question would have been better !!!!!

I have no reason to believe it is, nor that it would make any sense for it to be.