The Dominium model by Hasanuddin

[modest]

I do not think you did understand the “question”/statement. The idea that gluons eventually bound/bind to both quarks and antiquarks to produce both matter and antimatter is a non-debatable truism. This is evidenced in both our Earth that is made of matter and in high-energy experiments showing pair production. Therefore, the notion that the Big Bang fireball went from a state of free and unbound gluons and quarks/antiquarks to a condition with protons and antiprotons had been formed is a certainty, not a questionable point. Again, it is from this point, where particles become bound, that the Dominium deductive analysis begins.

 

It is at this point (when subatomic particles are formed and make their first atoms) that the problem arises. You now have hydrogen in the vicinity of antihydrogen. While it seems sensible (according to the dominium model) for these two to repulse and segregate gravitationally it must be under consideration what these atoms are made of. What makes up their mass? If you want to say: matter and matter are drawn together with an equal yet opposite force that matter and antimatter are pushed apart (which is indeed what the dominium model is claiming) then there is a problem.

 

The mass of hydrogen is mostly in the form of gluons and the mass of antihydrogen is mostly in the form of gluons. Why would the mass of hydrogen repulse the mass of antihydrogen gravitationally if they are both made from the same stuff? We know the mass of gluons does not repulse the mass of other gluons gravitationally. This is a very valid objection which the model has not addressed.

 

~modest

[Hasanuddin]

Okay, now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty of the problem: and indeed, the problem is confusion caused by the deceptively sound “appearing”, yet totally unsound application of the informal fallacy Converse Accident. This becomes apparent in the following string of thought:

Originally posted by Modest

“What makes up their mass? … The mass of hydrogen is mostly in the form of gluons and the mass of antihydrogen is mostly in the form of gluons. Why would the mass of hydrogen repulse the mass of antihydrogen gravitationally if they are both made from the same stuff?”

Bingo! I have never seen a clearer example of this particular fallacy. I mean no offence, the fallacies have bedeviled the smartest of the smart for centuries. It is easy to get tricked by them.

 

Essentially what is being concluded is that the constructed particle will possess characteristics based on the properties of what it is constructed of. That however is not necessarily true. Just look to basic Chemistry, or better yet biochem, where most everything is made up of CHON, yet yielding dizzying results based on arrangement.

 

In the case we are considering, gluons are the building blocks. How they are arranged is not yet known or certain in any way; however, it seems clearly obvious that in order to form a proton or antiproton they must achieve some sort of structure. However, to conclude that the internal structures of protons, for example, are fashioned in exactly the same construction antiprotons is unfounded, and a hunch at best. Even if the same exact number of gluons and quarks is needed, the intricacies and resulting dynamics need not be the same. Just like in biochem, the same numbers of CHON atoms can be arranged in many different ways. It is also clear from biochem examples that it is the arrangement that fundamentally determines the characteristics—not the building blocks themselves.

 

There is no valid reason to suspect that the construction and arrangement leading to different species of matter and antimatter don’t also lead to resulting characteristic that could be vastly different than the raw materials used in construction. Therefore, to suggest that between protons and antiprotons there could be displayed repulsive force is not at all off base. Such a dynamic could be possible depending on the dynamics induced by the ultimate interplay of the final assemblage.

[Hasanuddin]

Move #8

 

Let it be reiterated that the “Dark Event” is profound, complex, and multi-layered. The separate occurrences being discussed would have happened in quick succession of one another. Because of the inherent complexity of this event, I wish to pause and specify our frame of reference. For the purpose of discussion we will talk in terms of the developing Milky Way. (Let it be understood, that mirror conditions would have been occurring in areas predominantly antimatter, which will later develop into mirror-functioning antimatter-based galaxies.) But, for the sake of this discussion, micelles will be assumed to be composed of antimatter while the surrounding matrix of the young Milky Way would have been matter.

 

In Move #7, the skewed imbalance of force vectors was established for antimatter micelles w/in the young Milky Way. It was also established that forces would be greatest towards the center of the forming galaxy. Therefore, conditions most favoring the collapse of micelles existed at the center of the embryonic galaxy.

 

Consider also the gravitational force vectors that would apply to different regions of more-represented matter of the forming Milky Way galaxy. Towards the perimeter of the forming galaxy forces would be asymmetrically oriented and therefore not particularly favoring collapse. However, matter towards the center of the galaxy would possess strong gravitational force vectors that would be pointed inward, i.e., favoring collapse.

 

The notion that matter at the center of our galaxy collapsed to form black-hole material is an established fact and direct match to nature. Further observations show the presence of supermassive black-holes at the centers of all galaxies that have been examined. These facts are firmly established.

 

The creation of both the Milky Way’s central supermassive matter-based black-hole and collapse of micelles would have occurred at approximately, if not exactly, the same time. Therefore antimatter micellular black-holes (AMBH) would have been w/in the matrix of material being incorporated into the supermassive central black-hole. However, by this moment in time, the state of equilibrium had already been established between both matter and antimatter, which includes no mixing between the forming central black-hole and the AMBH.

 

Let it be understood that no mixing need not mean, no dynamic interplay between these two types of material. Because of coincidental geometry, some AMBH would become caught between the central black-hole and the rest of the proto-galaxy, which had not yet been compacted down. Other AMBH would be dragged to the gate-interface of the growing central black-hole by more-represented matter trying to enter the growing black-hole. Because the AMBH and central black-hole are immiscible with one another, the AMBH caught at the gate-interface would become “permanently” trapped.

 

Also, as AMBH was increasingly trapped at the gate-interface of the central galactic black-hole, the rate of growth of this central black-hole would be retarded. The reason for this is simple, the AMBH supply a repulsive force against matter outside of the supermassive central black-hole. Essentially, the AMBH act to guard the gate-interface and prevent further growth from occurring.

 

Check to nature: match and an "anomalous" condition is explained.

One unsolved puzzle concerning the structure of our galaxy is the fact that our supermassive black-hole exists smack in the center of the part of the galaxy with the highest density of stars/mass. The paradox appears from the fact that our own supermassive black-hole does not seem to be eating/accreting very much at all. Why? With the understanding of gravitational repulsion and AMBH trapped at the gate-interface, that question appears to be answered.

 

This explanation also matches peculiarities observed in other galaxies. True, our supermassive central black-hole does not appear to be very active (good thing for us), but that is not true for all supermassive black-holes observed in other galaxies. Some appear to be actively accreting/growing to this day. The difference between central black-hole that are relatively inactive, like our own, and those that appear to be much more active, could be explained by the amount of AMBH that was trapped at the gate-interface at the time of creation. The amount of trapped AMBH would be a variable dependent on the randomness and compositional make-up of the original proto-galaxy.

 

**Now here is the truly amazing portion of this post. On January 9th, 2009 the ESA and NASA jointly released stories about the Integral satellite’s completion of its job mapping the giant cloud of antimatter surrounding the galactic center. Honestly, I nearly soiled my pant when I read those stories. Coincidentally, The Dominium ISBN#9780980096330 was published exactly one year prior to the ESA/NASA news release… January 10th, 2008… and when published, I was least comfortable with this section. I did not like speculative-appearing deduced conclusion of an antimatter shield between the supermassive black-hole and the rest of the Milky Way. You see my understanding of the known galactic center was exactly the same as what was described in the 18th post (with a cool semi-famous picture that I can't seem to post)

Originally posted by Modest

There are stars very near the black hole at the galaxy's core. They reveal through their motion that its mass is approximately 3.7 million solar masses and that mass attracts the stars in the nearby neighborhood. The image here shows observations over 9 years:

 

-source

The motion reveals the extraordianry attractive power of the object at the core. If we are postulating that matter and antimatter are repulsed gravitationally wouldn't this observation indicated that both the ordinary stars and the black hole are of like content (either matter or antimatter)?

The Dominium conclusions did not align with common-knowledge or what I knew to be known about the galactic center. All evidence that I knew of matched Modest's assessments that antimatter was not known to exist at the galactic center & I also believed that no sizable concentration of antimatter had ever been recorded in the Universe. Despite my discomfort, its existence followed deductively. Also, I knew that this shield must exist, because it was the only way to answer the paradox/anomaly of why a supermassive black-hole can exist in the most mass-dense part of the galaxy, yet not appear to be actively eating. No, I was not messaging the data to yield any particular conclusion (btw, you can’t do that with deduction) but I new that the shield had to exist, no matter how speculative it seemed on the day of publication, because it is categorically certain that the galaxy did not collapse into the supermassive black-hole that is known to exist at its center.

 

ESA - Space Science - Integral discovers the galaxy?s antimatter cloud is lopsided

NASA - Satellite Explains Giant Cloud of Antimatter

 

You can imagine my utter disbelieve that not only is the antimatter shield a real structure, it has been mapped!

[CraigD]

Also, I knew that this [antimatter] shield must exist, because it was the only way to answer the paradox/anomaly of why a supermassive black-hole can exist in the most mass-dense part of the galaxy, yet not appear to be actively eating.

The presence of primordial antimatter – what Hasanuddin calls “micelles” – exerting a repulsive gravitational force on surrounding matter – is not the only way to explain why the Milky Way’s central supermassive black hole is not actively eating.

 

An increasingly popular explanation is that nearly all galaxies undergo a cycle in which their central black hole “eats” infalling matter, which results in increased radiation from the inner accretion area of the black hole, which “blows” the infalling matter, reversing its fall and creating a “bubble”, which results in decreased radiation, allowing the now outwardly blown matter to reverse direction and fall inward again (although I’ve read several popular science articles on this, and it’s been discussed at hypography, after a reasonable search, I can’t find a reference to one. this 1973 paper is, I think, an early instance of this explanation). The nucleus of a galaxy during it’s “eating” period is known as an active galactic nucleus.

ESA - Space Science - Integral discovers the galaxy?s antimatter cloud is lopsided

NASA - Satellite Explains Giant Cloud of Antimatter

 

You can imagine my utter disbelieve that not only is the antimatter shield a real structure, it has been mapped!

Neither of these articles, nor the paper they discuss, Weidenspointner et al’s paper, “An asymmetric distribution of positrons in the galactic disk revealed by gamma-rays”, support the claim that the observed 511 keV EM radiation (characteristic of electron-positron anihilation) from the Galactic Center is due to annihilation of primordial antimatter. Rather, they suggest that the positron sources are nearby low-mass x-ray binary stars. This explanation is compelling, because the shape of the source of 511 keV photons (of which much more is known now than in the roughly 30 years this radiation has been detected, due largely from data from the INTEGRAL satellite gamma-ray observatory) appears to match the distribution of LMXBs.

[modest]

An increasingly popular explanation is that nearly all galaxies undergo a cycle in which their central black hole “eats” infalling matter, which results in increased radiation from the inner accretion area of the black hole, which “blows” the infalling matter, reversing its fall and creating a “bubble”, which results in decreased radiation, allowing the now outwardly blown matter to reverse direction and fall inward again (although I’ve read several popular science articles on this, and it’s been discussed at hypography, after a reasonable search, I can’t find a reference to one.

 

I was recently discussing this with Pluto, but I think more helpful would be these Hypo articles:

• 1528
  
• 2199
  
• 16106
  

The last article references the paper I've read from which I'll quote a relevant section:

 

Given that star formation and black hole fueling appear to be coupled (e.g. di Matteo et al. 2005 and references therein; Silk & Rees 1998), it is likely that there is a selflimiting growth cycle for BHs and therefore a physical upper limit to their masses. Here we present several distinct arguments that can be used to estimate the final masses of BHs (Haehnelt, Natarajan & Rees 1998; Silk & Rees 1998; Murray, Quataert & Thompson 2004 and King 2005). These involve self-limiting growth due to a momentumdriven wind, self-limiting growth due to the radiation pressure of a momentum-driven wind, and from an energy-driven superwind model ...

 

...Murray, Quataert & Thompson (2004) argue that the feedback from momentum driven winds, limits the stellar luminosity, which in turn regulates the BH mass.

 

An alternative upper limit can be obtained when the emitted energy from the accreting BH back reacts with the accretion flow itself (Haehnelt, Natarajan & Rees 1998). The final shut-down of accretion will depend on whether the emitted energy can back-react on the accretion flow prior to fuel exhaustion...

 

King (2005) presents a model that exploits the observed AGN-starburst connection to couple black hole growth and star formation. As the black hole grows, an outflow drives a shell into the surrounding gas which stalls after a dynamical time-scale at a radius determined by the BH mass. The gas trapped inside this bubble cools, forms stars and is recycled as accretion and outflow. Once the BH reaches a critical mass, this region attains a size such that the gas can no longer cool efficiently. The resulting energy-driven flow expels the remaining gas as a superwind, thereby fixing the observed Mbh − σ relation as well as the total stellar mass of the bulge at values in good agreement with current observations.

 

Is there an upper limit to black hole masses? page 7

[Hasanuddin]

I believe I am beginning to understand what Tormod meant and the culture of this forum. This conversation, in many ways, is directed at the silent readership and at just the science/logic. I am very cool with that. As I have mentioned many times, I am very impressed by this forum… I was since the very first moment I saw how this thread started and the fair consideration afforded at the time.

 

A side note to the silent-readership: continue reading, there are about ten more moves to go in order to give a complete understanding, i.e., until the model deductively arrives at its own beginning, the next Big Bang. Which completes the entire outline/cycle. Also, tell your friends and associates about this thread. You’d be very surprised who enjoys cosmology. My next door neighbor, a cop, was one of the first to read and understand the full model (he finished the book in one night.) Very cool things, the answers to more paradoxes, and the reasoning behind more evidentiary anomalies are ahead.

CraigD presented a very interesting article, Science Centric | News | Searching for primordial antimatter. It reports on Chandra data analysis of two galaxies colliding (the Bullet Cluster) and accompanying discussions and interpretations of the data and potential implications. The scientists conducting the study were hopeful that if antimatter were present in the two galaxies, then in such a collision it would be easily shaken out and measurable by Chandra.

 

Steigman, et al’s studies are interesting, however his conclusions are based on a hypothetical diffuse model. Such a model presupposed that any/all antimatter within either galaxy would be evenly distributed and therefore loosely connected and equally likely for ejection as matter. Therefore, any residual antimatter, dispersed throughout the galaxy, could be easily shaken out via collision and observed via Chandra. However, very little antimatter (three parts per million) was observed. Superficially, this seems to match conditions of little antimatter present. However, that is not actually conclusive—the data is fine, the conclusions are biased because of a faulty model being tested.

 

The Dominium model being presented is radically different from the diffuse one Steigman et al are assuming. Ironically, the difference between the two models is extremely similar to the historic differences between the “plum-pudding” and Rutherford models for the atom. Steigman assumes a plum-pudding arrangement, while is Dominium predicts a tight configuration compacts about the core, like Rutherford. For the Dominium, the antimatter is trapped and compacted in a shield configuration around the supermassive black-hole at the galaxy center (AGN)—{for the sake of discussion I’m going to use this acronym in all cases, i.e., whether active or not.} Geometries of opposing repulsion forces—from the compacted matter of the AGN vs from the non-compacted matter of the galaxy proper. This locks the antimatter in place.

 

The only prerequisite premise the Dominium needs to conclude that the antimatter stay locked into place—even under conditions of collision—is for momentum to be conserved. If momentum is conserved then the original geometries responsible for locking the antimatter shield around the AGN will stay in place even though the collision might cause slight shifts of individual particles. If the original geometries were to hold, then the antimatter would remain held locked in place. The only possible exception would be an exceedingly rare event were the AGN’s of two colliding galaxies actually physically impacted. In such a case, the two different antimatter coverings could easily be blasted off. Such an event, if possible, would be truly amazing to behold!

 

As far as real data, that article only had that one little snippet, a 3ppm reading. The rest was a discussion of theory, future directions, and interesting common-knowledge definitions. Nice, but nothing additional was presented that was actually factual.

 

Blowing and Bubble Theory Yes, I know of this scenario. The problem with this hypothesis is that it raises more questions than it superficially answers. In this model to explain the paradoxical positioning of the AGN (in the area of the galaxy with the most food for it to eat) yet the contradictory-appearing fact that it is not eating. The problem with this particular model is that if you really look at it, it supplies two “whats” but conveys no “hows” or “whys.”

 

Here’s my meaning, the “whats”:

1: What event happened to stop the AGN’s eating—a blowing of material (dust & whatnot) away from the AGN.

2: What stopped future eating to occur—a bubble, which pushes out and then back in, but not really all the way in.

 

Longing for “hows” and “whys”:

1: How did the stuff blow? How does one “blow” across space-time if there is no friction? Do particles need to collide in order to impart ME? Are electric field forces sufficient to push non-touching particles at great distances? Do we need to create a new never before observed exotic force (a djinni) to account for this blowing? What initiated the blow? Shouldn’t some AGN’s in the visible-verse show signs of blowing, especially if it’s a cyclical process; one would expect late bloomers to continue blowing… and that should be visible… but such data has never been recorded.

2: How does the “bubble” work? Why would the blown material stop advancing outward? If they were blown into frictionless and expanding space-time, would the distances of this blown material just keep on going? Oh ya, I forgot… we must explain the modern galaxy, Earth is on the outer rim of the Milky Way. But why would the material turn around? Can we explain this with known forces or do we need to create another djinni, or do we modify the djinni created for part 1?

2b extension. Okay, assuming that we are on an oscillating cyclic bubble, that would be something very much like a frictionless spring, correct? Well, if this bubble-theory is correct, why don’t we measure distant galaxies oscillating in and out like frictionless springs? Why would we measure that for our own galaxy. But we do not; we’re neither shifting outward nor inward (so our instruments appear to tell us.) So it would appear that our bubble, if correct, has stopped oscillation… why? Do we need a separate djinni to explain this observation also?

 

Yes, such is the paradox of the massive AGN: smack in the center of the most densely packed part of the galaxy with food galore around it, yet it eats very little for its size. I have known about this paradox for some time. I have known about the popular-assumptions that were described in post for a long time. I’ve never liked either portion of this explanation because there are just too many questions induced by this “answer.”

 

The Dominium explanation is much more clean, crisp, and clear. The deductive analysis did not set out to answer this paradox, rather its description was necessary outcome of repercussions following categorical premises. The fact that this evidentiary anomalous paradox has been given such a simple and clear explanation is testament to the strength of the new model. The fact that the positioning of an gravitationally repulsive antimatter shield between the AGN and the galaxy proper was a blind prediction that was directly deduced from this analysis and then verified as an actual documented structure is astonishing. The fact that the ESA/NASA explanations for the antimatter shield around the Milky Way’s AGN are different that the Dominium’s is irrelevant. What is relevant and extraordinary is the truth of the existence of this structure—something that appears to contradict all popular-bias assumption—yet, is an undeniable manifestation of nature. Counter-concurrently this structure is a necessary deductive prediction of the Dominium. The irony and coincidence that the Dominium was published 365 days to the day, prior to the ESA/NASA news release is kind of miraculous in itself, the prefection of its fit and level of proof is just awe-inspiring.

[Hasanuddin]

Three very interesting articles on this subject were introduced by Modest.

 

The first article http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-news/1528-black-holes-regulate-galaxy-formation.html is an interesting report of a simulation software analysis of data that appears to correlated the size of the galaxy to the size of the black-hole at its center.

 

In terms of the Dominium model this article aligns quite tightly to its findings. Because of random variability that would have occurred at the time of self-assembly, some dominia/protogalaxies would have been larger/smaller than others. Depending on size there would have been variable inward force vectors to generate the initial AGN seed. Smaller self-assembled areas would have produced a smaller seed and vv.

 

Regardless of initial size, all dominia would be expected to possess micelles that would be dragged to the gate-interface of the AGN and begin creating the GR-shield that would ultimately stop/limit the block-hole’s ability to feed.

 

The second article, http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-news/2199-era-galaxy-black-hole-growth-spurt.html, I personally find more valuable because it is based on actual direct observations from Chandra.

 

I find the concepts discussed and observed data that is presented to be fascinating. Being able to see actual proof of two galaxies combining! Wow, that’s about all I can muster. In terms of the Dominium, first glance at this data might appear to contradict the notion of self-assemble and GR. The issue is resolved when one considers that at least 50% of all mass is going to be matter, it directly follows that roughly half of the galaxies are. The process of self-assembly would have involved both ultimate alternate positioning, but also a period of growth and organization into their “final” situation.

 

What this data appears to be showing, in Dominium terms, is that the period of self-assembly continued on past the advent of CMB and then star-creation. However, an subtle aspect conveyed is that most of the self-assemblage and organization of the Universe had already happened by to point visible stars had begun. The reason for this assertion is because the stars shown already appear to be in galactic-sized subunits.

 

Also, I am not surprised at all will the observation that the galactic black-holes (AGNs) were growing at the same time. That also seems to fall in line with the model—I am excited by the newness of these observations and how they appear to align with Dominium sequencing.

 

I am quite intrigued by the line

The X-ray observations also showed that the black holes are surrounded by a dense shroud of gas and dust. This is probably the material that will be consumed by the growing black holes.

The part that most intrigues me is the description of the shield surrounding the black-hole as “dense.” That could indicate many things that could potentially bring support to the new model. Perhaps it is verification of the Dominium prediction that the shield be made of AMBH (antimatter micellular black-holes) and therefore would be quite dense. Quite intriguing.

 

The third article http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-news/16106-yale-astronomer-discovers-upper-mass-limit.html although interesting, I do not agree with the absolute soundness of the ultimate conclusions being made. Essentially this article represents an account of observations of the last portion of the AGN growth cycle as the process slows down. (Wow, things have come a long way in the past decade, such observations, though not surprising, is truly news to me!)

 

Although I find it totally cool that folks have observed the last phases of AGN growth… I do not agree with the final conclusion that the statistical survey conducted can claim that there is a maximum size/limit for black-hole growth. Quite to the contrary, to me, all this survey does is confirm the Dominium assumption that self-assembly would have applied from earliest on in the development of the Universe. Systems that self-assemble do so predicatably and uniformly. The notion that ultimate galaxy size and the assertion that all protogalaxies contain micelles (that will ultimately dam-up the gate-interface) is central to the understandings of systems that self-assemble. The repercussion from this would result in a uniformity of size of resulting quadrants—exactly what appears to have been observed.

 

Therefore, this article seems to lend credit to the notion of self-assemblage (not the stated max-size for black-holes.) Besides, the notion of a maximum size for black-holes is contradictory given the premises that have been established on this thread in moves 6-7; if black-hole material is the most stable phase of existence, then its size (micro or super-duper) would not affect its degree of stability. No other phase is dependent on sample size; there’s no reason to think that black-holes would be.

 

Again, as this article goes on, Natarajan says “They shut off at every epoch in the universe." This opinion confirms the earlier assertion that all dominia would contain micelles, therefore all seed AGN would eventually be turned off.

 

This article is the only one that began to talk about the popular explanation for this observed paradoxical anomaly (AGN stopping eating and subsisting in the most mass-dense portions of galaxies) when Natarajan goes on to say

”the black holes eventually reach the point when they radiate so much energy as they consume their surroundings that they end up interfering with the very gas supply that feeds them”

(This is the “blowing” part of the popular explanation that CraigD mentioned on post 72.) As mentioned in the post immediately before this one, this popular-explanation raises more questions than it answers.

 

Thank you Modest. All three of the articles were very interesting, tangible, and based on current data. I learned a few things with that read and thoroughly enjoyed myself. If there are any concerns raised by my assessment of this data and how is combines/jibes with the Dominium, I’ll be happy to delve deeper.

[CraigD]

Blowing and Bubble Theory Yes, I know of this scenario. The problem with this hypothesis is that it raises more questions than it superficially answers. In this model to explain the paradoxical positioning of the AGN (in the area of the galaxy with the most food for it to eat) yet the contradictory-appearing fact that it is not eating. The problem with this particular model is that if you really look at it, it supplies two “whats” but conveys no “hows” or “whys.”

 

Here’s my meaning, the “whats”:

1: What event happened to stop the AGN’s eating—a blowing of material (dust & whatnot) away from the AGN.

The event is not a sudden one, but gradual, on a time scale of an appreciable fraction of the age of the universe.

 

As the rate of matter falling into the accretion disk of the central subermassive black hole increase, the rate and average energy of collisions of neutral and ionized atomic mater in the AD increases. As the rate and energy of these collision increase, their rate of radiation, consisting both of photons and atomic matter – its brightness – increases. This radiation collides with the infalling matter, accelerating it in an outward direction. As the infalling matter rate decreases, the rate and energy of collision in the AD, and thus its brightness, decreases. The active galactic nucleus becomes inactive, also known as quiescent.

2: What stopped future eating to occur

Nothing. In principle, as the radiation pressure of the SMBH’s AD decreases, the rate of infalling matter can increase, and quiescent GN can become active again.

1: How did the stuff blow? How does one “blow” across space-time if there is no friction?

Space does not encompass an absolute vacuum, but mostly, by domain, gas and plasma (see the wikipedia article “outer space”).

 

The physics of the interstellar medium, which is mostly gas, and the intergalactic medium, which is mostly plasma, are similar to those in more familiar volumes of gas, such as planets’ atmospheres. Even familiar concepts such as the speed of sound – the speed at which a pressure shock wave travels in a medium – are defined in these outer space domains. For example, the speed of sound in a particular studied region of interstellar space was calculated to be about 1170 km/s, about 3500 times the speed of sound in Earth’s atmosphere (see “Orbits of stars vs. motion of spiral arms misconception”).

Do particles need to collide in order to impart ME?

Yes. Note, though, that “collisions” of neutral particles, such as non-ionized atoms, are not like classical elastic collisions of hard bodies, like pool balls, but due mostly to virtual photon interaction between their charged particles. Thus, the answer to question

Are electric field forces sufficient to push non-touching particles at great distances?

is related the answer of the previous question. Although interaction between charged particles are strong and long ranged, ([math]\mbox{distance}^{-2}[/math] strength law), because charged matter rarely segregates itself into large composite bodies of same charge, this interaction is rarely significant in the interaction of many particles.

Do we need to create a new never before observed exotic force (a djinni) to account for this blowing?

No. Although some have proposed that phenomena such as the gamma ray emissions discussed in previous posts are due to unknown phenomena, such as the decay of dark matter, of those I’ve read, none of the articles and papers about galactic nucleus physics that put forth the explanation I’ve described above and in my previous post propose forces other than mechanical and gravitational.

Shouldn’t some AGN’s in the visible-verse show signs of blowing, especially if it’s a cyclical process; one would expect late bloomers to continue blowing… and that should be visible… but such data has never been recorded.

A great deal of such data has been recorded and described in many papers and popular science articles. One of my favorites is the one cited in the above linked post, “Ripples in a Galactic Pond”, Françoise Combes, 10/2005 Scientific American (unfortunately, like most Scientific American back issue articles, this article is not available free online).

 

Astrophysical models that emphasize the importance of the dynamics of the interstellar and intergalactic media are compelling, because they are based on well-understood and confirmed fundamental physics, and not only explain phenomena such as active and quiescent galactic nuclei, but also many others, such as “waves” or “bursts” of star formation. Although arguably undercommunicated to the general public, these models are much discussed in scientific literature.

[Hasanuddin]

The event is not a sudden one, but gradual, on a time scale of an appreciable fraction of the age of the universe.

I agree, depending on which “event” you are talking about. The creation of the AGN seed would have been instantaneous and would happened early on in the Dark Event. The sealing off of the gate-interface by micellular build up would have been gradual. And the amount of time needed would be variable depending on the local initial conditions.

 

Post 76 contained a more official representation of the current popular-bias explanation for the paradoxical aging-cycle of the AGN from a ravenous seed-monster to an anorexic behemoth (itself a contradiction in ideas: The AGN is most able to eat when small, but loses the ability to “attract” new material as it gains in size and gravitational presence—a quandary itself. The paradox continues because is exists within the densest portion of the galaxy… yet with all the potential food it eats next to nothing.) Current theory was pretty well summed up:

Originally posted by CraigD,

“As the rate and energy of these collision increase, their rate of radiation, consisting both of photons and atomic matter – its brightness – increases. This radiation collides with the infalling matter, accelerating it in an outward direction. As the infalling matter rate decreases, the rate and energy of collision in the AD, and thus its brightness, decreases. The active galactic nucleus becomes inactive, also known as quiescent.”

Although this description seems better, the mechanisms for how/why the particles accelerated away stopped accelerating are not crystal clear. Also is a vague mystery is the answer to why the AGN stays “quiescent” despite the fact that it is in the most densely populated portion of the galaxy. Why don’t some AGN’s break their silence and go on a massive binge? Given the number of galaxies out there and the random probabilities, this should be a fairly common sight. However, as far as I know, such a random massive binge has never been seen. It appears once an AGN is muzzled, it is permanently altered—that is not what one would be expected for the tenuous trial&error-achieved stasis.

 

Unfortunately, CraigD’s reply got lost in trying to explain the nuances of the paradoxical conflicts w/in popular-bias explanation (of the paradox,) and forgot to consider two important things: the existence/role of the antimatter cloud and actual probabilities for extreme cases. I believe my playful intent in one part of post 73; I did list many of the levels of the paradox. Sorry, I didn’t mean to give the impression that I “wanted” to have them individually addressed. The truth it, I know the common reasoning used to answer those sub-quandaries, however, the main question/observation remains paradoxical. Also, there a portions of the natural conditions cannot be neglected, but are ignored by consensus view. There are problems with respect to probabilities vs uniform certainties between both the two models and with what is naturally observed. For example:

 

How does the Integral-mapped antimatter cloud fit in? Under popular-bias theories, it doesn’t. However, it is definitely there—right smack dab in the middle of the action. So why isn’t it mentioned as playing a role? …because it is ignored (or not known) to those advocating current popular explanations for the paradox of the “quiescent” behemoths? Does this omission mean that it plays no role?—no. If anything, the omission from consideration of this massive structure which is physically present in the exact area we are discussing lends credit to the idea that it DOES play a role, but that role has yet to be consider by the populace of the scientific community. Because of the physical situation and enormity of the antimatter shield at the galactic center, it seems highly unlikely to play zero role in the dynamics of AGN evolution.

 

Dominium simplicity Current explanations are “complex” compared to the simple idea of a repulsive shield wedged between the AGN and the galaxy proper. Current theory leads to what, at best, would be considered an unstable equilibrium; while the Dominium model’s physical shield would be a permanent and absolute fix/neuter of the AGN. I assert that the popular bias assumption relies on the hope of an unstable equilibrium to be established after trials of cyclic radiation bursts leading to a galaxy with “stabilized” structure. But a trial and error method would be expected to achieve varying degrees of successful attainment. Some galaxies reaching higher/lower proportions of stars with stable orbits than others. Therefore we’d expect to see some galaxies achieving a very stable condition, while other galaxies would not be so lucky. However, the variable outcome expected for the trial and error attainment of equilibrium in not what is observed. Quoted from the 3rd article Modest delivered, Natarajan says “They (AGN black-holes) shut off at every epoch in the universe." In other words, this is a certainty, not a variable or possibility. The Dominium leads to a certain outcome that matches observations. However, current popular explanations would be open to a much broader range of probabilistic outcomes--that just aren't observed.

 

Also missing from this reply was any mention of the diffuse matrix model assumed by Steigman et-al versus the centralized concentration of antimatter model proposed by the Dominium (and confirmed/mapped by Integral) Though to me, that question is of much lower priority than the notion of the role of the central galactic “antimatter cloud” in the paradoxical evolution of a ravenous AGN seed to an anorexic behemoth, and the discussion of probability verses observed (Dominium predicted) certainty of slow-down/shut-off.

[Hasanuddin]

Dear CraigD, freeztar, Modest, moontanman, Tormod, and whoever else has been following along,

 

Happy Easter and I’m off to Italy. (My opening statement was not meant to have any “religiousness” to it, but it is Easter Sunday and I am leaving for the Boot.) The ground is thawed here, the bulbs are popping up, and the buds are starting to swell. Even so, I must leave for a short couple of weeks and miss some of that action.

 

Poppa Pat and Muma Lorraine are celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. So they’ve bought tickets and reserved a couple villas and the entire family is going back to the homeland. (Sharon and myself are necessary WASP baggage, by marriage.) Imagine all that time—with your inlaws—when it’s Spring in Boston and this forum is moving so well. I have thoroughly enjoyed the great dialog, review of current collected data, and revelation of model/lens for viewing that data is being described and show to apply to even the newest data-findings.

 

Before I excuse myself, let me throw one last bone into the ring… not Move 9, (I want to be here for that debate.) Rather I want to mention something that I am not as comfortable to argue because I am not as familiar with the actual specifics of this paradox. But, I will do my best to describe the anomaly, but only suggest timidly a Dominium “solution” (though not a strong assertion, because it all depends on the actual dynamics of the natural system for the numeric proof—exposed at the end of this post—to work.)

 

I have been led to believe that there is a mass disparity for the core of the galaxy—at least, in the different calculations of the core’s mass. That, if you study all the moment from the fast orbiting ones closest to the AGN black-hole to those far away on the galactic rim, like us, it doesn’t add up to the same value that is obtained through measuring mass in different ways, i.e., observations of light bending, lensing, etc. (Perhaps I am confused about the two tests in conflict, regardless, I do know that two methodologies produced two radically different paradoxical estimations.) If this disparity exists between two trusted methodologies, the paradoxical question is, "Why?"

 

Let me put up for consideration a “quiescent” AGN, i.e., an AGN encrusted with opposite type material, i.e. again—the micellular antimatter cloud just recently mapped by Integral.

 

Opposing force vectors will be emitted: attraction by the AGN contrasting to the repulsion induced by the micellular antimatter cloud (MAC.) Therefore, this opposition will act a destructive interference in overall force experienced by stars and systems of the Milky Way. Therefore the stars and systems orbiting the combination of AGN-MAC would need much smaller tangential speed than had the black-hole been without MAC. In other words, for every ounce of MAC, an ounce of AGN would be masked. Therefore, calculations of mass based on visible observations of orbit speed will be far lower than the actual value of the total mass.

 

In contrast, as was stated to CraigD on the very first page of this thread, under Dominium predictions, antimatter will attract light in the exact same manner as matter. Therefore, both the AGN and the MAC will be attractive towards the light and constructively interfere. Hence the calculation derived from this method will show much closer readings of the total mass present.

 

Therefore also, the mass of MAC should be equal to half the difference between the two stated calculations.

 

That is a prediction that is both blind and clouded in uncertainty and ignorance. (BTW, I’ve said it before, but I totally believe that embracing one’s ignorance is the best way to scientifically evolve one’s understandings.) Perhaps I am wrong, but it would be interesting to find those three numbers: mass calculation of the core via traditional kinematics; the mass estimation of the core via lensing analysis; and the most recent mass calculation (hopefully this has been done) of MAC using Integral’s direct mapping.

 

The prediction is that one half of the difference between the first two numbers should be in the same neighborhood as the third number.

 

Then again, my prediction could be wrong because of my own ignorance of the full magnitude of the pertaining issues/dynamics. It’d be a great Easter Egg to find if this prediction turns out to be correct. Nonetheless, even if it doesn’t, all paradoxes are interesting in and of themselves. Have fun with this question I leave you with... no need to rush to answer this post, I won't answer anything for at least 16 days. See you in a couple weeks.

 

PS to the silent readership: continue to tell your friends, relatives, inlaws, and associates about this thread. We’re only half way through showing all the Moves that explain the anomalies/paradoxes within the data and shows a clear and smooth path from Big Bang to Big Bang. Some of the most interesting conflicts in the data are still to be resolved.

 

PS to the “Posters:” In the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, “I’ll be back.” Seriously folks, I’ve had a great time and look forward to continuation of these discussions.

[CraigD]

Happy Easter and I’m off to Italy.

Happy travels to you and yours, Hasanuddin!

 

I’m off to the store to get a last-minute bit of pagan regalia – candy eggs and rabbits and such – to surprise my immediately-family-of-one-other, nothing on a part with Italy, though I expect fewer language difficulties. :)

 

Alas, my wife Kate’s and my mom live within 10 miles of one another in rather un-picturesque stretches of southern Appalachia. Gorgeous country, though despite local effort, I think it’ll never rival Italy as a tourist destination.

 

See you in a few weeks.

[CraigD]

A while ago, I posted

Unfortunately, the people who have the ability to actually do this experiment – a single group, the CERN-centered Alpha collaboration (formerly the ATHENA collaboration), are not, I think, likely to undertake the considerable effort and expense of such an experiment, because they are nearly certain of its results. Thus, it may be necessary to wait until cold antimatter is more widely available for such an experiment to be done.

 

Rather than promoting the “Dominium model” through informal discussions, I recommend that people with a real scientific interest in it campaign for the cold antihydrogen experiment described above, to definitively support of falsify the theory’s key assumption, or, in the event that nearly all physicists are wrong, and antimatter and matter do, in fact, repel, trigger the revolutionary revision of particle physics and a host of other sciences that would surely result.

Hasanuddin replied:

Fifth and sixth paragraphs: I applaud! CERN does possess the ability to fashion an experiment to test this fundamental relationship. Perhaps not tomorrow… but they do possess the means.

 

The seventh paragraph I cheer, but then I remember who/what I am and am lost with a feeling of uncertainty and helplessness. How? How is it possible to get the ear of folks in control?

Curious about the question of how to get the ear of folks with cold antihydrogen, I followed links (some broken, requiring the help of the very-helpful archive.org) to find contact info for CERN, emailed the contacts given, and after a couple of referrals and 10 days later, got a helpful reply and a forward to the head of the AEGIS (Antimatter Experiment: Gravity, Interferometry, Spectroscopy) experiment.

:)

As is so often the case, this little bit of information – the name of a proposed experiment – is enough to give as much information as a spectator like myself desires. Included the reply to my email was the additional good bit of information that “An experiment to measure gravitational effects on antihydrogen was recently approved here at CERN”.

 

It appears, then that I was overly pessimistic in my suspicion of a long wait until such an experiment is done, rather, the wait should be short, perhaps within the year.

 

News of AEGIS seems to have appeared mid 2008, with the New Scientist article linked to by the above linked wikipedia article.

 

A detailed description of the experiment can be found in the arxiv preprint linked by the wikipedia article, “Formation Of A Cold Antihydrogen Beam in AEGIS For Gravity Measurements”. In short, the experiment consists of a beam of antihydrogen with speed of “a few 100 m/s” flying horizontally on a path about 1 meter long, a couple of gratings to allow only antihydrogen atoms following a specific range of arcs to pass, and a detector to allow the travel time to be precisely measured. It’s expected to give an acceleration of gravity measurement accurate to within about 1%.

 

This experiment should show conclusively whether antimatter gravitationally attracts or repels matter. :thumbs_up

[Hasanuddin]

Dear CraigD,

 

Hello again, I hope you are well rested. There is a lot of work ahead and much more of the model to unfold. I was surprised that you made no comment to my rather bold assertion, in post #78, for the cause and reasoning for a mass disparity between the different methodologies used for calculating the mass of our galaxy’s core could be explained by Dominium posited interaction of MAC. The subsequent resolution I provided is of the genre of blind-predictiveness that is required for a valid and sound scientific model, is it not?

 

As far as AEGIS is concerned, that project has been in the works for a pretty long time. I hope them clarity in reading and interpreting their data. Excuse my skepticism, but it feels like folks are always claiming to be on the edge of making a true breakthrough, only to later admit the obstacles/excuses for inconclusive data. I mean, over ten-years ago the Antihydrogen Project at CERN assumed that it was close to finalizing the question of gravitational interactions between matter and antimatter, but apparently it wasn’t.

 

Though at the time, the technician I was talking to wasn’t sure whether resources would be invested in that direction or not (since there are many directions that the project could have taken.) The flow of resources can either speed or kill scientific discovery. Hence my strong advocacy of any and all resources being channeled towards any/all antimatter research. There are huge potential benefits and unrealized applications. I am quite serious. Creating antimatter is a known process, but it is highly expensive. The more research, the more advances will be made and costs will come down (potentially becoming commercially viable.) The same thing goes for storage. Then add into the mix the Dominium predicted existence of stable AMBH and the future for discovery, application, and advancement become quite rosy.

 

I find it ironic and funny that you report that news of AEGIS officially surfaced in mid-2008. At that time debate over the new Dominium model was raging on the Scientific American community forum (now a broken-link) and I was debating with a highly intelligent man from FermiLab’s Tevatron complex; more than 4000 unrestricted/duplicatable downloads of the truncated model had been issued, and several hundred books had been dispersed. Coincidence, perhaps; or possibly, I did get my wish of getting the attention of CERN higher-ups (that you quoted in post 80.) If that is true, I wonder if CERN will acknowledge the Dominium if/when they make the revolutionary breakthrough of showing matter/antimatter gravitational repulsion?

 

The confounding problems with past attempts to nail-down gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter are both simple and complex and have already been largely discussed on this thread. How to reproduce simple concrete experiments that have been done for matter? But remember, major laboratory induced problems exist: minute quantities of antimatter, skewed ratios of matter:antimatter, and the necessity of electric or magnetic containment fields that have in the past masked any and all gravitational interactions.

 

Hopefully all those kinks have been ironed out. Honestly, I would love to have this fundamental question conclusively answered once and for all.

 

PS & by-the-way: Please refrain from using “smileys.” They are both distracting, annoying, (and have a condescending appearance) to me. Sorry. Call me old-school; call me old—but I firmly believe that if your words have merit, then they don’t need to be adorned. That was the way I was trained; I even find over-use of exclamation points to be offensive!

 

…see what I mean. Take care and I look forward to many more fruitful discussions. I believe the main issues on the table are:

1. The prediction in post 78 for Dominium projected MAC interactions leading to the known disparities in the recording of the mass of our galaxy.

2. AEGIS discussions

3. Move 8

4. And/or any previous concern that you feel that has not been wholly resolved.

5. Any new issues in this post you wish to discuss.

 

As in the past, I will allow a 24 hr lull to occur before posting the next move in the Dominium’s deductive analysis and resulting model.

[CraigD]

As far as AEGIS is concerned, that project has been in the works for a pretty long time.

 

The question of how antimatter interacts gravitationally has, as best I can tell, been a subject of discussion since around 1928, when Dirac first described the positron, so one might say AEGIS has “been in the works” for a long time. However, when CPT symmetry was published and came to be widely accepted in the 1950s, serious discussion by professional scientists that antimatter might be repelled by normal matter that is, exhibit “antigravity – the foundation of Hasanuddin’s “Dominium” theory – seems to have largely ended. Subsequent serious discussion, including theories to be tested by AEGIS, focus on hypotheses that antimatter is not repelled by ordinary matter, but attracted slightly less strongly than an equal mass of ordinary matter.

 

Most scientific discussion about antimatter, however, and the major focus of research since the production of the amount of cold antihydrogen necessary for experiments became available around 2004, has centered around hypotheses that the spectra – the emission and absorption lines – of antihydrogen would differ from that of hydrogen. Research into this still unanswered question continues, both by the ATRAP collaborative, and the newer AEGIS group - the “S” in AEGIS stands for “spectroscopy”.

 

When considering that it is intended to detect only a small difference in gravitation attraction of antimatter and matter, not a complete reversal of it, the design of the AEGIS experiment, a much more complicated one than what I describe in post #36, makes sense. The first version is expected to be accurate to within about 1%, enough to confirm or contradict many theoretical predictions for a difference in antimatter-matter vs. matter-matter gravitational interaction. If no difference is detected by it, I believe new versions capable of greater accuracy will be conducted.

 

According to the information I received from CERN staff, funding of AEGIS was approved in 2008. This agrees with reports in the popular science press.

I hope them clarity in reading and interpreting their data. Excuse my skepticism, but it feels like folks are always claiming to be on the edge of making a true breakthrough, only to later admit the obstacles/excuses for inconclusive data. I mean, over ten-years ago the Antihydrogen Project at CERN assumed that it was close to finalizing the question of gravitational interactions between matter and antimatter, but apparently it wasn’t.

I’m curious as to your sources of information leading you to this impression, Hasanuddin. Can you link to or cite some of them?

 

My experience with the scientific publications and press releases from CERN is that they’re very guarded and conservative in their claims and predictions, especially in noting how little neutral antimatter they’ve made and how briefly they’ve been able to store it. We can expect to see an outpouring of more such press releases, both from CERN and other schools and labs, when the movie adaptation of Dan Brown’s 2000 novel “Angels and Demons”, appears in theatres May 15 2009, because this story depicts the near destruction of the Vatican by an antimatter bomb stolen from CERN, a scenario of which CERN and other sources have emphasized the impossibility by noting that “If we could assemble all of the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes” (see CERN’s ”Spotlight: Angels and Demons”)

 

I think it’s important to understand that projects like ATHENA, ATRAP, and AEGIS are not “claiming to be on the edge of making a true breakthrough”, but rather are systematic, primarily engineering projects intended to provide data to test experimental predictions that are, in many cases, decades old. In the past 50 years, no scientifically literate person has doubted that what these projects have done – combined antiprotons and positrons to created cold antihydrogen – could not in principle be done. The practical engineering of actually making machines to do it, however, has taken decades of effort from hundreds of theoreticians, experimentalists, engineers, and technicians, and many tens of millions of dollars.

 

Based on their funding and experience, I’m hopeful that AEGIS will publish unambiguous results interpretable by anyone with an undergraduate or better physics background within the next 12 months.

 

Given the near unanimous scientific consensus that antimatter is not gravitationally repelled by matter, and the short time before clear confirmation or contradiction of this is likely to be available, I’m not inclined to spend much time and effort pursuing speculation that assumes the opposite. Since you’re dedicating possibly more time and effort to such speculation than anyone else, Hasanuddin, I think you might do well to wait and see the AEGIS results before proceeding along these lines, too.

[Hasanuddin]

Dear CraigD,

 

Please excuse my lag in responding, I have been hit by a perfect alignment of jet-lag, influenza, allergies, and piled up deadlines.

 

Post 82’s historical synopsis for the development of the understanding of antimatter is largely correct. However, I do not believe that one can use the movement of the historical whims and trends of scientific exploration to build the basis of an argument to make assertion either for or against the Dominium, or any other proposed model for that matter. I say this taking issue with the underpinnings of the statement:

Originally posted by CraigD…

serious discussion by professional scientists that antimatter might be repelled by normal matter that is, exhibit “antigravity – the foundation of Hasanuddin’s “Dominium” theory – seems to have largely ended.

There are two main “mistakes” made within this statement:

1: To assume that the whims, trends, and popular-biases of other people constitutes the informal fallacy of bandwagon. Scientists are just as human and can be influenced by to opinions of others—even when such opinions possess no actual hard evidentiary supports. Collective assumptions do not turn those beliefs into evidence regardless of the number of people believing them. Examples of the “majority” of scientists firmly believing some assumption that was later found incorrect is found within all disciplines of science—there is no reason to believe modern particle physics would be immune to this trap.

2: The term “antigravity” has never, as far as I’ve read, been used by anyone who actually seriously considered the notion of gravitational repulsion as a viable option. To the contrary, the reverse is true: papers I’ve read using the term “antigravity” are ultimately written by detractors of the notion. Why? …because the term “antigravity” itself, is a dismissible and charged word with allusions to sci-fi. Essentially, that one word connotes a strawman argument: mentioned, but set up flimsily, with the ultimate goal to be knocked down, for rhetorical pizzazz… yet being scientifically hollow.

 

Think about it, was does “antigravity” actually mean? Is one referring to a new force that is against-gravity? Is one referring to being weightless? Is one referring to switching the gravitational affects between existing objects? No, this is an awful and unscientific term. Nothing can be gained by using this term except confusion or the rhetorical strawman illusion of a point, when there is actually none.

 

It is 100% incorrect to say that “antigravity” is the foundation of the Dominium model. Never have I used that word. No the foundation premise of the Dominium is that gravitational repulsion is displayed between matter and antimatter.

 

I agree with Post 82’s third paragraph (concerning ATRAP & ‘s’ of AEGIS), though I don’t see the point of how failed attempts to find antihydrogen’s spectral signature relates to anything on the table. (It’s as irrelevant as the later paragraph discussing the fictional work “angels & demons.”) To date, all spectral-analysis attempts have been failures…but, so what? Yes, there have been many attempts to reproduce the relatively “simple” experiment of spectroscopy. True, a conclusive spectroscopy test would go a long way in proving/disproving the validity of the Dominium model—but nothing has been determined. The Dominium rests on a final conclusion that absolute symmetry exists between matter and antimatter. In bringing this up, one bit of trivia post 82 omits is the reason why those experiments have failed, (or how those failures relate to the model being discussed.) Since it’s been brought up, I’ll fill-in reason for past failures: normal spectroscopy occurs when a low-density gas is put within a high voltage field and electrons are caused to accelerate by the voltage across that gas causing individual atoms to be excited an emit their characteristic spectral signature. On a superficial glance, such an experiment “should” be easy for antihydrogen.

A: All antihydrogen samples are at low-density & in a gaseous state

B: High voltages are easy to create

C: Positrons are easy to create

*The problem comes in putting it all together. How to have the positrons accelerated by just the voltage? Past attempts have essentially been to shoot a beam of positrons through a sample of antihydrogen. But that results in collision/fracturing/pp, not spectral emission.

 

There is another “problem” highlighted in paragraph 2 and 3 that I do not disagree with—though I know that these points were not meant as central themes—nonetheless, they were made, and I concur with their truth. As CraigD correctly points out in post 82, scientists at AEGIS are hoping to find evidence that antimatter is

“attracted slightly less strongly than an equal mass of ordinary matter.”

Similarly those scientists at ATRAP are hoping to find evidence that antihydrogen’s spectral signature

“would differ from that of hydrogen.”

I do not disagree with either of these assessments; the problem is that whenever humans hope to see something they often become blinded to what they actually do observe. (Consider visitors to Loch Ness or Area 51.) Better yet, consider what happened in the past concerning the subject of storage of antihydrogen. Before it was conclusively shown that antihydrogen is stable, there were many who were hoping to see instability because of popular-bias assumptions of instability of antimatter given the hypothesis of asymmetric decay and an all-matter Universe. When such folks did not see what they were hoping for, they concluded that they had seen nothing special at all. Rather than admit that the stability of antihydrogen was important in and of itself—or that their failed predictions undermined their assumptions—they merely dismissed these facts irrelevant to popular-bias assumptions with hand-waving and double-talk. Hopefully that will not occur if ATRAP shows a spectral match between hydrogen&antihydrogen and/or if AEGIS shows signs of gravitational repulsion (though both events could certainly occur.)

 

I am delighted to have confirmation of the ironic coincidence that CERN approved funding for AEGIS last year, 2008, at the height of the SciAm debates over the new Dominium model. Because that debate involved a man from Tevatron, I knew the likelihood that CERN-folk where aware of it was quite high. This is good news. Whether of not someone tries to pull a Watson&Crick ruse and eventually lay claim on my work is irrelevant: the goal of science is an expansion of understanding and discussion (issues, not individuals), therefore if my actions and/or model have fomented action I am delighted.

 

The integrity and soundness of one-on-one conversations that I had with CERN technicians was called into question with the comment

I’m curious as to your sources of information leading you to this impression, Hasanuddin. Can you link to or cite some of them?

Regarding conversions I had with technicians at CERN’s Antihydrogen Project, of course I don’t have any links to such informal interactions—but that does not imply that I am lying or that those words were not said. I was at CERN in 2000 representing the USA, I did attend roughly 90% of the summer lecture series, I was given personalized tours of many of the facilities, I did meet one-on-one with 5 or eight Nobel laureates (don’t ask me which I’m awful with names and regularly forget my children’s and best friend’s names), I worked at a CERN CEM lab, I collaborated and learned from most remarkable peers from roughly twenty nations, and I was exposed to all sorts of theory and data first-hand from those working on and creating it. Now I suppose you want me to supply a link verifying these truths. But to do that I would have to reveal my true identity… something I have been loath to do (see the last paragraph.) You see I like my privacy; I am convinced that scientific issues are worth remembering, while those who originally saw the insight are not; also I wholeheartedly lack respect for those who see themselves as more entitled, more elite, more special, or more perfect than any of the rest of humanity. Hence the pseudonymous penning of The Dominium, registration with the Library of Congress, and presence on the web. But, you want evidence of my first-hand exposure and knowledge… here you go: CERN - HST - 2000 - Participants

 

I agree with the claim that official CERN press releases are guarded. And I also agree that such releases rarely make huge claims or predictions for fear of ending up with egg on the face. However, officials/individuals working at CERN are not nearly as guarded with their words. Hence, the conversation with the technician to which I was referring. Conversely, in post 80 the claim is made by CraigD of having made personal email contact with people at AEGIS (cool, sounds like an interesting source); post 80 was even ended with the bold statement that appeared to have resulted from this personal contact:

Originally posted by CraigD

This experiment (AEGIS) should show conclusively whether antimatter gravitationally attracts or repels matter. :esmoking:

It seemed a logical conclusion that such a bold statement (and unnecessary thumbs up “smiley”) could only be based on the stated inside-track personal communication (not based on anything officially released.) If not, how is it justified?

 

The last paragraph of post 82 brings a “huge” disappointment {literally, a huge font was used.} It begins with a reiteration of the bandwagon appeal to consensus groupthink—in complete absence of corroborating evidence—is followed by the following:

I’m not inclined to spend much time and effort pursuing speculation that assumes (gravitational repulsion)

Huh? Then what is your purpose here on this thread if it is not to scientifically discuss the pros, cons, and repercussions of the possible repulsive interaction between matter and antimatter? Isn’t the whole purpose of this entire thread to discuss the Dominium, an Alternate Theory, based on the categorical deductive ramifications of that particular premise? Once the consensus believed a lot of things that we now know are wrong. Isn’t it great that people never stopped questioning common assumptions… especially those assumptions that were not backed up by any physical evidence? Today and on this thread we are discussing such a case: there is no concrete evidence supporting either universal-attraction or gravitational repulsion. Therefore, we should allow ourselves to consider all options.

[Hasanuddin]

Wow, something very important just occurred to me. It is so important that with this “edit” I am going to completely remove Move 9 from the thread… to be discussed at a later point.

 

In the post previous to this one regarding past attempts to measure the spectral signature of antihydrogen (the ATRAP project and the “s” of AEGIS), I replied to past attempts as “failed.” On the surface, my assessment is justified: no spectral signature has been forthcoming.

 

However, even though the intended results did not occur, that is not to say that those experiments did not produce data or that the data produced is not sound.

 

As mentioned in the last post, past attempts to find the spectral signature of antihydrogen have essentially been experiments where a beam of positrons was shot through a cloud of antihydrogen, thereby generating data cataloguing collisions, fracturing, and pair productions (not spectral signatures.)

 

Okay, life serves you lemons… let’s make lemonade:

Given that the data shows a good statistical representation of this very simple type of antimatter-on-antimatter collision… how might that compare to an equivalent experiment using matter-on-matter? (Assuming that all experimental parameters are kept constant: titer of the target cloud, current of the beam, spread and type of detectors used, etc)

 

Popular-bias assumptions would predict that because of asymmetric decay, the fractured antimatter particles would be shorter-lived than the matter pieces therefore resulting in fewer particles living long enough to pass through a detector and be recorded.

 

Dominium hypothesis would predict that because of absolute symmetry the types and quantities of produced fractured particles would be identical (through the mirror of each other.)

 

Such an experiment would be relatively easy/cheap to do. And its results would be pretty conclusive.

[Hasanuddin]

It seems we’ve reached an interesting juncture; a halfway point, if you will. It’s time for a little introspective tally of how things stand.

 

Let me reiterate to those following along: please tell others of the discussions here. It is of utmost importance that all views are shared and that the rules of evidence and deduction are adhered to. Please step in with any questions, assertions, or insights of your own. Although I don’t mind chasing tangents (if a poster feels a concern is related then I will address it head-on) but in reflection, it is rather funny that most of the discussions on this thread have not been about the Dominium model or its assertions; but, rather have been focused on defensive arguments propping up status quo assumptions. Let it be reiterated the sage words of the Great-grandfather of modern theory

The grand aim of a science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.

--Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

By his measure, the Dominium model is quite far ahead at this point, check it out:

 

Hypotheses and/or axioms used by the Dominium

1: Matter and antimatter gravitationally repel one another

2: Black-holes are the result of an imbalance of forces

 

Hypotheses and/or axioms used by popular-bias consensus beliefs

1: Matter and antimatter gravitationally attract

2: A, yet to be reproduced, exotic “dark energy” is pushing the Universe apart.

2b: The affects of “dark energy” produced a kink in the Hubble expansion curve that is ‘accepted’ but not explained.

3: A, yet to be observed, “wind” blew all materials away from the supermassive black-hole (AGN) at our galaxies’ center stopping its feeding (However, this assumption leads to the paradoxical observation that the bulk of the galaxy is situated very close to the center; therefore, if the AGN is not feeding now, that is only the result of a temporary unstable equilibrium... however, no observation of our galaxy or others confirms such instability.)

4: Binary star systems are creating the massive antimatter cloud surrounding the AGN, in a yet to be described manner.

5: In a, yet to be explained manner, all matter of the Universe was laid out uniformly, (which is in direct contradiction with natural probabilistic occurrences, but is nonetheless accepted as plausible, because that is the end-result.)

6: In a, yet to be ironed out fashion, the event horizon is flat (which again seems to be an observation in contradiction to some relativistic assumptions used to define preceding observations.)

7: Mass calculations of our own galaxy (kinetics vs. light lensing) do not come close to matching, this disparity is attributed to dark-energy, dark-matter, or something else depending who you ask. (The paradox is accepted as another mystery of space.)

8: No residual annihilation events are observed in the sky from statistically certain residual amounts of ancient antimatter—solution hypothesis: antimatter is extremely unstable

8b: Storage attempts to contain antihydrogen over long periods show it to be extremely stable—the paradox with “8” proper is ignored.

 

Hmm, eight new hypotheses for each of the eight moves taken so far. Within that tangle of hypotheses (required to prop-up popular-bias assumptions) are five intractable paradoxes that are essentially ignored, i.e., put off for later consideration or for someone else to worry about. Using Einstein’s method of assessing models, how can one claim that status quo popular-bias assumptions are superior to the Dominium?

 

Actually, I think I know how this claim/belief is possible. I have been a Physics instructor for many years. I know that the hardest things for people to “learn;” are those things that involve long-held (and incorrect) beliefs that must first be “unlearned.” For example, even the best students fall for the trap that a bathroom scale measures weight—when it is actually measuring the normal-force being applied to it. Why this classic confusion? Because even the brightest approach physics with preconceived misconceptions—of which they may not even be conscious of. Ever since such students were 2-yrs-old they have been told that bathroom scales measured one’s weight. By the time they reach a proper physics class, this misconception has been firmly engrained … for some, this misconception may be impossible to lose.

 

Although scientists might like to think of themselves as different from an introductory student, all humans a susceptible to the same logical and emotional traps. Therefore, am I surprised that some very intelligent people don’t want to discuss a model that meets Einstein’s ideals over they messy unverifiable popular-bias house-of-cards? …No, I’m not surprised at all. However, to those who do listen and consider this new model, there are great potential benefits. If the Dominium is correct, then those who jump on board early on will be riding the crest of a giant wave of change.