[Mr E]

Moderation note: this post was moved from “Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang” because it is not about the original thread’s subject of whether there was a Big Bang or not, but an alternative theory explaining the Big Bang.

Hi All,

Just to throw a curve ball, have you heard of the most recently advanced model for the birth of the Universe? For the sciencey types check out the articles at The Dominium

[freeztar]

It's an interesting read, but it's all speculation at this point. I'm not sure I buy the reasoning for why detectors have not found positrons in the solar wind. It's my understanding that the EM force between a positron and an electron would cause them to annihilate, which could be detected. Also, wasn't it shown with the Eötvös experiments that matter and antimatter are affected the same by gravity? Those seem to be pretty big holes in the theory if I'm understanding everything correctly.

[CraigD]

freeztar said:

I'm not sure I buy the reasoning for why detectors have not found positrons in the solar wind. It's my understanding that the EM force between a positron and an electron would cause them to annihilate, which could be detected.

I think you’re correct, freeztar. The attractive magnetic force between antiparticles follows the same force law as the suggested repulsive antigravitational force, but has about times the relative strength (it doesn’t much matter whether we’re talking about electron/positron or proton/antiproton pairs, as the ratio of mass of proton to electron is a much smaller about 1836).

In addition to these theoretical reasons, particle-antiparticle collisions are very commonly observed in particle accelerators. I don’t see how hypothetical antiparticles in the solar wind could behave much differently.

freeztar said:

Also, wasn't it shown with the Eötvös experiments that matter and antimatter are affected the same by gravity?

“The antimatter gravity debate” section of the wikipedia article “Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter” appears to have a good synopsis of this question. To summarize that synopsis, arguments that the Eötvös experiment proves that antimatter and matter are effected by gravity in the same way are inconclusive.

I’m hopeful that, CERN having be able to produce magenetically neutral, cold antihydrogen for several years, some of this very rare stuff will eventually be used to perform a straightforward test of the effect of gravity on antimatter: just dropping it in a vacuum chamber, and observing whether it annihilates with matter at the top or bottom wall of the chamber. Such an experiment would conclusively and compellingly answer this very old question, either supporting or entirely negating alternative theories like this thread’s “dominium model”.

Following references from the wikipedia link above, I find papers speculating about the key features of dominium model at least as early as 1979. I think the relative rarity of such speculation among knowledgably cosmologists, and a lack or urgency to perform the above mentioned antihydrogen experiment, are due to nearly all of them being nearly certain that antimatter doesn’t exhibit antigravity.

Among the arguments against antimatter antigravity presented in the wikipedia article above, I find this one neat and compelling: since the force of gravity between particles that are not their own antiparticles (eg: protons) and those that are (eg: photons) is always attractive, if the gravity between particles and antiparticles is repulsive, would photons be attracted or repelled by antimatter? If so, why?

[Mr E]

Hmm,

I'm not sure where to begin. I thought the model and the concepts brought up in the articles by Hasanuddin were interesting also. Actually, I've been following a debate that he's been having with some intense folks on a different forum. His arguments are pretty convincing. Now I feel kind'a bad bringing it up, because it feels like we're talking behind someone's back. I wonder if he'd answer himself if I told him about this discussion? There's only one way to find out.

[Hasanuddin]

Hello Folks and thank you Mr E for the invitation,

My name is Hasanuddin and I am the author of the Dominium model. Although I’m starting to feel a little stretched, I am impressed by the caliber of the comments that have hit this thread.

I’m actually glad to hear that others are inspired to talk about the model I am advancing, I only wish Mr E had tried his hand at defending it. Though no concrete arguments have been levied against the new model; no data has been shown to be anomalous to its assertions; and multiple previously unexplainable verifiable phenomena are both predicted and explained by the new model … only when people other than myself start defending it can it be considered matured. (I know, I know, the claims of the last sentence might seem a bit premature to this thread… but give me time and I will supply the justifications.)

I will respond to freeztar and CraigD separately and in a moment. Please wait just a moment or two.

[Hasanuddin]

Dear freeztar,

I have several points to make. First, I’m wondering if you read the thread at the above link starting with thread #3 or thread #1? No offense; I am serious, that site was poorly designed. If you read thread #3 first, then I totally understand your confusion regarding the solar wind. In threads #1, it is firmly established that gravitational stability is the primary driver of all systems at absolute chaos, i.e., particles of mixed charge and mixed antimatter/matter. Because of gravitational repulsion self-assembly will occur segregating regions into the different matter types (regions of matter vs. regions of antimatter.) Once primary stability/sorting has been achieved then gravity loses its prominence and secondary and tertiary forms of stability can be sought. For the solar wind, gravitational stability was achieved long before reaching the Earth. Therefore, there is no chance that the positrons driving the solar wind will mix with the electrons and matter-based ions being driven. Also, because gravitational affects space-time at very large distances, the positron drivers will be deflected away from large matter-based satellites long before they are even close. Therefore, there is no chance that WIND or SWEPAM could ever detect these positrons, which they haven’t.

Actually, the absence of positrons from the titer of collected particles from the Sun is, in fact, a hugely interesting statistic. We know that the Sun’s fusion is a giant positron generator, we “believe” the solar wind is just solar material randomly scooped of the surface by “the vacuum of space” (though no-one has every provided a concrete mechanism how this happens.) So why haven’t we found positrons in the solar wind?? That is a really big question. After all these years of monitoring, why none?

As far as these “Eotvos Experiments,” I’d really like to see a much better source than Wikipedia. That site is cool for finding the highest mountain in Peru, but when it comes to things that people are passionate about (scientific theory, the Holocaust & other massacres, and politics) that site seems to be too easily manipulated for propaganda purposes. According to Holcheiter/Charlton “Ultra low energy antihydrogen” (1999) Rep Prog Phys we don’t know of the gravitational interactions between matter and antimatter because of the masking effects imparted by the very strong electric and magnetic fields used to contain and manipulate antimatter. This was further backed up by Bromly, Lima, Laricchia “On the XIIIth international workshop on low-energy e+ and Ps physics” (2006) J.of Physics Conference Series Sorry, but please tell me what journal Eotvos is in; or if its in Arxiv queue. As far as I know there is no conclusive study one way or another.

[Hasanuddin]

Last but not least, to reply to CraigD

You say:

Quote

particle-antiparticle collisions are very commonly observed in particle accelerators. I don’t see how hypothetical antiparticles in the solar wind could behave much differently.

Please pause. Can you not see that one case is artificial and one case is natural? Accelerators are designed to focus the beams to collide. Whereas in the case of the solar wind, we are dealing with a natural system where particles came move wherever. I do not see how these two things can be considered comparible.

Eotvos revisited—I’m glad to see that you read this study as inconclusive.

I agree with you for the need for a test to conclusively find the gravitational relationship between matter and antimatter—I agree, that is the only rational way to proceed forward in science, with evidence. …And then I am dismayed by the next paragraph justifying the lack of exploration to determine the exact nature of gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter, where you say, “nearly all (scientists) being nearly certain that antimatter doesn’t exhibit antigravity.” Certainty w/out proof is not a scientific path. I know it’s one that many people take, but it is not warranted when studying the unknown. I’ll give you a bunch of good reasons why this fundamental question needs to be categorically answered and no longer glossed over: the evidentiary anomalies, for example, the solar wind, antimatter cloud surrounding the galactic center, the supermassive black-hole at the galactic center, apparent “absence” of all antimatter, increasing expansion, uniform mass distribution, flat event horizon, and on, and on. Scientists who are “certain” that they are on the correct foundational footings are ignoring the annoying contradictions posed by the evidentiary anomalies. None of these phenomena are easily answered w/out a separate theory w/ a separate set of assumptions of their own, e.g, the vacuum of space argument (w/out a mechanism) for the solar wind. If the current assumptions were perfect, we should not have so many anomalies. The Dominium model provides answers for all of these and more with only one hypothetical premise: gravitational repulsion.

PS: You are right about these fundamentals of the Dominium being around since 1979 (though I have no idea who to give attribution, I lost my notes in a move and haven’t been able to find the original articles again in the library…please tell me who they were, if you know…I have felt awful that they haven’t been given credit.) This model started off as a letter to an MIT acquaintance who, to my surprise & gall, had never heard of them (his “specialty” is the inflection point in Hubble Expansion.) I used the deductive method in that letter, and that analysis expanded rapidly into the Dominium model.

In answer to the last point you brought up, as far as the probable relationship between photons and antimatter, the answer I would give is attraction:
1: We know that photons are the antiparticles of themselves; we know photons are attracted to matter; therefore, protons would also be attracted to antimatter because being a “between-species” they have as much in common with matter as they do with antimatter, therefore would be influenced similarly.
2: Both matter and antimatter warp space-time, photons are attracted to things that warp space-time, therefore, photons will be attracted to antimatter.
3: Finally, one of the implications deep w/in the Dominium model is that before the first light of CMB, micro black-holes (MBH) were created inside of embryonic galaxies of an opposite type the the galaxy itself. So, for the Milky Way, the type of MBH produced would have been antimatter-based (AMBH). Because of asymmetric geometries most of the AMBH from our galaxy would have been purged, as would have been the case for MMBH produced in mirror galaxies based on antimatter. However, both types of material would have been purged at a time after considerable expansion had already taken place. Both types, the model asserts, are still on-route to the nearest like-type galaxy, which means that today they are all located somewhere between galaxies. This perfectly matches the gravitational readings of what has been referred to as "dark matter." Because these readings are based on objects attracting photons gravitationally, therefore this observation and the Dominium assertion are consistent with the notion that photons are attracted to gravitational influences of antimatter.

[Hasanuddin]

Well, I was expecting more of a debate. Let me see if I can give fuel for a debate. Unless anyone wishes to stop and object to a move that I make, for the next couple days I will slowly unfold the new model on this forum. The methodology is simple formal deduction. Premises will be identified that are 100% categorically true, and from these conclusions will be drawn that necessarily follow and are therefore, 100% correct (this is the fundamental understanding of the deductive process.)

Let's begin:

Move #1:

A: The Big Bang was the moment in time when All particles of the Universe were at their absolute closest to each other

B: Gravitational relationships are at an inverse square relation between force and distance

Therefore if matter and antimatter repel, then affects/effect would strongest during the beginning moments of the Big Bang.

Supporting evidence behind the premises:
1. Electric charge (the other “big,” known, and understood field force) exponentially increases in magnitude when place at decreasing distances.

2. Initial stages of the Big Bang coincides with the time when distances between particles were closest together

[freeztar]

Hasanuddin said:

Well, I was expecting more of a debate.

I haven't forgot about this thread. I, personally, not having very much formal training in theoretical physics, need a good bit of time to dig into this, research, and post a reasonable response/objection. I'll try to form a response to your response to me above within the next day or two, if time permits.

FWIW, your last post seems completely reasonable to me.

[belovelife]

interesting.....
need to digest

[Hasanuddin]

MOVE 2:

1: Undeniable premise: When matter and antimatter happen to be in the same place at the same time then they will always annihilate with one another

2: Established premise: equal amounts of matter and antimatter will be produced in the initial moments of the Big Bang

Putting these two premises against one another presents quite a quandary. If matter and antimatter collide, then they disappear out of existence. However, one thing we know for sure is that matter has persisted…on Earth. Therefore, any solution must allow for matter to exist on Earth in the absence of antimatter. However, before pondering the solution, one must consider the initial conditions:

The two test hypotheses lead to only two possible conclusions: either gravitational repulsion (GR) discourages annihilation, or the popular-bias "universal attraction" (UA) enhances occurrence of annihilation. The longterm affects of either hypothesis can be calculated using statistical functions commonly applied to genetic populations. Consider an annihilation event to be synonymous with a lethal heterozygote:

Test of the popular-bias hypothesis: The force orientation of UA increases the propensity for the heterozygote to be produced… in this case, the statistical solution indicates that over time the heterozygote is favored. Whenever there is a genetic lethal heterozygous phenotype, where heterozygous mating is favored: the condition always leads to system collapse. The decline curves of all phenotypes are predictably asymptotic, therefore annihilation would be predicted to be occurring at lesser and lesser rates infinitely into the future. Therefore, such events should be visible and detectable in sky. But this is not seen. Quite the contrary, NO evidence of annihilation events ever occurring can be found, even in the oldest sections of the cosmologic data. Therefore, popular bias of UA produces a mismatch w/ what is naturally observed.

Oppositely, the force, GR, reduces the propensity for the heterozygote. This is a completely different condition, a type very well documented throughout nature. In this case the “deterrent” against a heterozygous mating is this test-hypothesis’ proposition: GR. Whether you’re talking about solutions reaching equilibrium or biological system achieving stasis, the process works the same. Whenever there is a deterrent against the heterozygote, an equilibrium translates into a division that eventually forms between groups that are 100% of one homozygous intermarrying phenotype, separated from other groupings of oppositely homozygous & intermarrying individuals. Therefore, this path predicts that stasis will be reached where there are clumpings of monocultures.

Our Earth matches such a description: stable all-matter object—a matter-monoculture. But, this observation only half matches the test-hypothesis; it also predicts monocultures of antimatter to exist elsewhere in the Universe. How can we, via direct sampling, collect material from “elsewhere in the Universe?” …Impossible. The Earth does exist as a virtually all matter object; that is undeniable. However, we have no ability to directly sample distant galaxies, therefore, that only half of this conclusion is completely verified—most importantly, no aspect of nature appears to be contrary to the Dominium premise; & the 2nd time nature contradicts the popular-bias UA conclusions.

[Hasanuddin]

Move number 3-three.

Using the Hubble space telescope we can observe far back into the cosmologic record. However, we cannot see the first hundred thousand years or so of the development of the Universe. We could not “see” the galaxies until particles reached the magic temperature of 3000ºK. Only at this temperature can protons and electrons combine and form hydrogen, and release the first photons of light. However, one starling observation is that, except for a very small number of exceptions, galaxies tend to accelerate away from each other. In other words, the process of galaxy building seemed to cease after a certain time period, but before the advent of the first visible light.

Which test hypothesis possesses paths that lead to conclusions that match this natural observation? Again, for the third time, the notion of gravitational repulsion produces conclusions closest to nature:

Test of the Dominium premise (gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter
As already established, gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter will deter and discourage annihilation events. As the repulsion process continues to segregate regions of matter from regions of antimatter, gravitational attraction w/in each region will cause like-type particles to aggregate. As these clumps grow they will function as point sources of gravitational interaction—imposing attraction vectors on like-type neighbors and repulsion vectors on opposite type ones. Such a system is extremely similar to highly mixed mixtures employed by nanotechnologists that predictably go through the process of self-assembly—a natural phenomenon where highly chaotic systems naturally move to a more ordered configuration to achieve stability. Using atomic/nano self-assemblage as a predictive model on would expect a type of patterned positioning similar to that, which has been produced in the lab. One such configuration involves alternate positioning as is seen in ionic crystals. Such a configuration necessitates a system that has a huge degree of order in terms of the distribution, size, and positioning or its components. Therefore, when applied to the developing Universe one could conclude that every other galaxy is made of antimatter. Furthermore, because all of the closest neighboring galaxies are predicted to be of opposite-type, therefore there would be a continuous (yet decreasing over time) force of repulsion and subsequent acceleration apart.

Check to Nature: Triple match
1st: It almost goes without saying that the Earth is an all-matter object in what appears to be an all-matter galaxy
2nd: The observed Universe is incredibly evenly distributed, exactly like a system that was self-assembled
3rd: Verifiable observation of the expansion of the Universe shows that the rate of expansion is a continuous, yet decreasing, positive acceleration

Test of the popular-bias assumption of universal attraction
What about universal attraction? How would that have effected development? The first major difference is that one would not expect the basic boundaries of the Universe to be defined. Annihilation events would be a random and continuous occurrence (the mismatch mentioned in Move #2.) With no boundary mechanism, no counter-balance of forces to initiate self-assembly, and a supposed asymmetry of decay, the distribution of mass should not be uniform. If all galaxies are attractive of one another, then what would prevents random super-giants or dwarfs forming?…nothing. Therefore, asymmetry in the distribution of mass is expected. Also, if all galaxies experience attraction with their closest neighbor, then some areas of the Universe should be in a state of collapse

Check to Nature: Triple Mismatch
1st: No annihilation events appear in the visible record. No antimatter appears to exist in our solar system.
2nd: Given statistical randomness, no areas of the Universe possessing any mega-mega galaxies. Rather the most amazing aspect about observations of mass distribution throughout the Universe is the uncanny amount of evenness.
3rd: No areas of the Universe appear to be contracting

On three levels the predictions of a system where gravitational repulsion exists between matter and antimatter is matched. Those same natural observations are in contradiction to what one would expect under popular-bias conditions of universal attraction.

PS To all those viewing: Debate is welcome at any time. If I use a premise that does not seem categorical or if I make a conclusion that does not seem to necessarily follow, please stop me and call me on it. I will be happy to clarify any confusion that arise.

[Hasanuddin]

Although no-one has bothered to challenge the assertions of the Dominium model since the original launch of this thread, I am glad that the counter showing the number of views steadily rises. What this tells me is that folks are interested in the topics being presented on this thread, but they choose to passively read, assess, and hold judgment until they’ve digested the ramifications of this new model more thoroughly. Such a reaction would be completely understandable. Perhaps this next move will draw comments (because it is not part of the deductive flow, but is more connected to a very familiar graphic descriptive tool used by Einstein… only slighty augmented to fit the Dominium premise of gravitational repulsion.) By the way, if you are reading this, even if you don’t have anything to comment on, please tell others about what is being disclosed here and now.

Move #4
Einstein’s Graphic: the Checkerboard of Space-time
At this point let me pause, and change gears a little. I want to tell you a little vignette. The following is from a different game, not Deduction. Rather, this is a scientific role-playing game. The idea is that you take some other scientist’s model, metaphor, analogy, etc, and then try to meld it into your own application. Kind’a like a Borg assimilation (sorry I’m showing my age.) This Compatibility analysis will be between the Einstein’s checkerboard of space-time and its fit into Dominium implications.

The checkerboard graphic is so wellknown; it is almost cliché. Objects composed of matter cause the fabric of space-time to “buckle” under their gravitational presence. Gravitational attraction is shown like two cannonballs on a stretched sheet always coming together. For the Dominium model, this graphic becomes “perfect” with one minor alteration. For the sake of argument, antimatter causes space-time to buckle-up, rather than buckle-down. Just as in the cannonball demo, two buckle-up antiparticles would feel gravitational attraction among other antiparticles. Also consider placing a buckle-up next to a buckle down. Would there be an attraction?… no, quite the opposite, the most likely force given this configuration would be a repulsion. Also, using this graphic you can imagine how annihilation might occur. Consider it, a buckle up distorting particle occupying the same space as a buckle down particle. Unless space can tear, two particles could not exist simultaneously trying to warp space-time in opposite manners. Einstein’s graphic description of space-time being like a checkerboard fabric meshed perfectly with the Dominium model projections. With one minor “addition” (antimatter considered to exert a buckle-up effect,) this new understanding can now graphically shown gravitational repulsion AND graphically gives window into the reasoning behind annihilation events.

Einstein originally described this graphic as a sheet stretched tight with two cannonballs placed on it. No matter where the two are placed, they always roll together: hence, a description of like particles gravitationally attracting one another. Now consider one cannonball on the stretched sheet and someone crawls under the sheet and pokes a broom handle from below up into the sheet; no matter where this would be done, the cannonball would roll away.

The broom and cannonball cannot occupy the same place at the same time without tearing the sheet. Hence, annihilation.

Another answer that comes from the new&improved checkerboard graphic is an explanation for the flatness of both space-time and mass distribution. Consider this graphic on a much larger scale, where the particles under analysis are individual galaxies. The Dominium predicts self-assembly and therefore alternating galaxies, matter neighboring antimatter and antimatter neighboring matter, and so on, but not mixing. Consider that picture. Alternating galaxies, one buckle-up next to buckle down out infinitely in all directions. Because of the alternative pattern, roughly, if not exactly, half would be comprised of matter and half antimatter. Also, the degree of warp would appear to be even. Hence, measurements from a place like Earth would show uniformity in mass distribution and a flat event horizon.

[buddyzen]

In my opinion i think that Alexander would be best at answering to this post =)

[modest]

Hello Hasanuddin, this really is a fascinating subject. I've sometimes wondered just what General Relativity expects of antimatter. If we take a feynman diagram rather literally and say that an antiparticle is a normal particle moving backwards in time then perhaps this has some analog in general relativity.

There are physicists who have theorized along those lines and they have proposed some of the same things you are proposing such as cosmic acceleration and flatness resulting from an abundance of antimatter. Here are a couple good papers I've seen on the topic:

• http://www.citebase....gr-qc%2F9906012
  
• http://arxiv.org/ftp...906/9906012.pdf
  
• http://arxiv.org/PS_...0804.4199v1.pdf

I've read your comments in this thread, but nothing else about your model. I'm wondering how it compares to the papers above. I'm also curious what your thinking is on the topic of neutrinos detected from the 1987 supernova. Many would take that observation as strong evidence for the equivalence of matter / antimatter gravitational attraction. Would you suggest that all of the detections were either neutrinos or antineutrinos, or some other explanation?

In any case, welcome to the forum and thanks for some very interesting reading.

~modest