The Dominium model by Hasanuddin

[Hasanuddin]

Dear Rade,

 

There are a couple other connections that I have identified between the Dominium and RAD models.

 

Well, at least one major point at which they rub: the moment in history described when the protons, neutrons, antiprotons, and antineutrons (baryons) all came into existence (baryonogenesis). Anyway, at the time of baryonogenesis proximity would have been close. This is also near the point indicated by the Dominium to be the advent of the period of Immiscibility. This moment happened so early on that the Universe was still near absolute chaos.

 

Okay the synergy between the two models is both subtle and strong. I’ll try to show this syllogistically

Dominium aid to RAD-model:

1. The Dominium concludes that Immiscibility occurred very early on in the Big Bang fireball

2. At this moment the matrix was near supreme disorder

3. Matter and antimatter were intermixed

4. Therefore quark bundles could form randomly three-dimensionally

5. There the creation of a relatively complex structure like a 3:2 conjoined RAD duo is quite reasonable.

 

At this point in the construct, Dominium assertion aid in the set scene for RAD-model structures to form.

RAD-model aid to Dominium

1. RAD-model predicts that the stable form for particles like proton is always a 3:2 ratio

2. Guth-imperfections are expected in the original heterogeneity

3. The ratio 3:2 is nowhere near as far off from 50:50 than 100:0 is.

 

 

I believe the connection here is a little bit subtler than the first. You see, the Dominium predicts that sorting of matter from antimatter is a primary driver of a system in absolute chaos. I suppose by saying it is “primary” assumes the front of the line, though the process isn’t stated. The RAD-model appears to give plausible possible steps within that process.

 

For example, given the fact that for each baryon produce, it masks 40% of its matrix of the other type of material. This is conveniently huge in terms of organizing towards conditions of Immisnibility. Baryonogenesis itself would mean the formation of composite structures that are both stable and immiscible within it. Because fundamental gravitational stability, i.e., sorting, is the primary driver of a system at absolute chaos, therefore it would occur very early on. Because of the tight predicted ring/barbell configuration of baryons, their creation must have occurred very early on. Do you see the two models dovetailing as I do? I may be mistaken, but they appear to be reinforcing each other.

 

Open Questions to consider

If RAD-model structures are correct, in regions of ultimate matter-predominance, a huge amount of the original antimatter is essentially masked, not annihilated within the structure itself, does this conflict with any other preexisting theories or observations?

 

If antimatter and matter both warp space-time oppositely, will the 80% that is masked ever affect instruments in a recordable fashion?

 

Has the 80% of masked mass ever been recorded in previous experiments, but been given an incorrect initial assessment?

[Rade]

Hasanuddin,

 

For the time being, we will develop the predictions of the RAB Model as we go. The details of the model were not published, only secondary papers. Like the Dominion Model, the RAB Model makes predictions not accepted by conventional physicists, thus it was very difficult for the inventor of the model to publish anything. I had a web site about the model, which is down now because the web host went out of business. So, it would be best at this time, until I get the web site running again, that you ask questions about the RAB Model, one or two at a time, and I will do my best to answer.

 

You asked this question.....If antimatter and matter both warp space-time oppositely, will the 80% that is masked ever affect instruments in a recordable fashion? Has the 80% of masked mass ever been recorded in previous experiments, but been given an incorrect initial assessment?.......

 

I think the answer is in the experiments dealing with dark matter and dark energy. These experiments predict ~ 4-5 % of universe is dark matter and ~ 74-75% is dark energy, so combined is ~ 78-80% of so-called dark matter-energy that could be considered 'masked' as predicted by the RAB-Model. The important point being is that the RAB-Model predicts all of this so-called missing mass and energy is not missing at all but within the four fundamental baryons [P], [N], [P^], [N^] that collectively can interact at the quark-gluon level, in the manner I presented previously.

 

As to neucleogensis, the RAB-Model has much to offer as you explain. It predicts that the process must have a start with the formation of fundamental sets of quarks (uud), (ddu), (u^u^d^), (d^d^u^), and the mesons such as (ud^), (u^d), which at this early point in time in the universe are unnamed and undefined and most likely in a form of a hot plasma. But quarks are in sets since we now know they must be so constrained, that is, so-called free quark does not exist.

 

I believe your Dominion Model explains this process and the subsequent neuclogenesis of how these quark sets can form stable unions--please correct me if I error here. The RAB Model is silent with respect to the dynamics of how the binding of quarks may have occurred. And here I see important connection of the two models, one (RAB) provides the structure (quark identity rules) the other (Dominion) provides the dynamics (quark interaction rules).

 

Now the RAB-Model predicts that the end result of this random binding process of sets of quarks (often called quark bags) resulted in six fundamental stable clusters of quark sets, three matter {(uud)(ddu)}, {(uud)(ddu)(uud)}, {(ddu)(uud)(ddu)}, and three antimatter {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}, {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)},{(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}. And, then, as I previously presented, these quark bags began a process of union that resulted in what we call baryons: proton [P], neutron [N], [P^], and [N^].

 

====

And, from my previous post, for clarity, here they are:

 

Matter Proton [P] = {(uud)(ddu)(uud)}, a 9 quark matter bag + {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}, a 6 quark antimatter bag.

 

Matter Neutron [N] = {(ddu)(uud)(ddu)}, a 9 quark matter bag + {(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)}, a 6 quark antimatter bag.

 

Antimatter Proton [P^] = {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)}, a 9 quark antimatter bag + {(uud)(ddu)}, a 6 quark matter bag.

 

Antimatter Neutron [N^] = {(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}, a 9 quark antimatter bag + {(ddu)(uud)}, a 6 quark matter bag.

 

====

Again, we must look to the Dominion Model to explain the dynamics of how these superpositions came about--the RAB-Model is silent. It would appear you have some ideas concerning interacting energy rings, which for now can be a starting point. And, as you say, both of us must look to some quantum mathematical genius to show us the field equations that predict how these quark bags would merge, matter with antimatter via combination of gravitational attraction and repulsion, to form stable union, stable baryons.

 

Now, let me explain another very fundamental prediction of the RAB-Model as relates to formation of stable baryons such as the proton [P]. It predicts there is not only one correct way that quark bags of matter and antimatter and unite, there are many, and the upper limit is constrained only by energy limitations. So, and I know this will sound to you very strange indeed, there are many different quantum realities of what we call the proton [P] predicted by the RAB-Model, and it is, taking the approach of Feynman, the 'sum-over-history' of all the many quantum possibilities that result in what our instruments measure as being the proton [P].

 

Thus we find the following probability wavefunctions = matter proton [P] according to the RAB-Model, with at this point an unknown upper limit to the number of quark bags that can be superposed:

 

The matter proton [P] as predicted by the RAB-Model:

 

= 1 {(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)} + 1 {(uud)(ddu)(uud)} probability # 1

= 1 {(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)} + 2 {(ddu)(uud)} probability # 2

= 4 {(d^d^u^)(u^u^d^)} +1 {(ddu)(uud)(ddu)} + 2 {(uud)(ddu)(uud)} probability # 3

= etc, etc, of the mathematical series

= (upper limit of bags allowed via energy constraint unknown at this time)

 

Therefore, from above, we see that the matter proton [P] is the sum-over-history of all these probabilities plus others to some unknown limit. The RAB-Model predicts great complexity for the proton, and it all derives from correct understanding of the ability of matter and antimatter quarks to form strong union, not only via the strong force, but also via gravitational attraction and gravitational repulsion. I know this must sound strange, (it sure is not how the proton is explained in the physics textbooks), but it is the prediction of the RAB-Model waiting to be experimentally falsified.

 

Now, perhaps the Dominion Model can supply the dynamics of this process, that is, provide the upper limit to the series number of quark bags that can be combined to form the matter proton [P] ?

 

Of course, all I show above for the proton [P] can be derived for all the other baryons [N], [P^], [N^] because the RAB Model is completely symmetrical for all beta stable isotopes, both matter and antimatter. There is also a quark bag selection rule that I could share if there is interest.

 

I will stop here to see if you or anyone else has questions or comments.

[Hasanuddin]

Good Morning Rade,

 

Novelty vs Ubiquity: I understand your frustration with the scientific establishment. Trust me, I know. You think your model steps on toes? The Dominium nearly crushes a few. I think the reason more scientists aren't open to new ideas is inherent human xenophobia. I heard a great program on NPR a month or so ago about “novelty,” and about how most folks absolutely loath the exposure and insecurity of trying new things. Although the individual might say, or even think, that they are open-minded. In reality, they are eating, doing, listening to, and using the same things over and over. When something extremely novel comes around, the first impulse is to dismiss it as not worth trying. So, in the initial phase, something that is truly novel begins by being ignored by society. During the next phase, some members of the pack are naturally more receptive to nontraditional actions, food, things, or music. Once one tries the novel item, the pack will watch for its reaction. Turns out, the adage, “monkey see monkey do,” is more accurate than one might have thought. The key for us both is to find those adventurous few. Hence my perennial call on these threads for the silent-readership to contact nerd, geek, and academic friends/family and tell them about the Dominium model. The importance of any individual in society varies with each action he/she takes. Within society, a scientific model should rise to the top, if and only if people know of it. The last phase of the assimilation process of a foreign/new thing, is the spreading of the practice/thought/item throughout society leading to ubiquity. That is the goal for both of the models that we advance.

 

Missing 80% You and I might have to share the disparities in the data that lead to the djinni assumptions of dark-matter and dark-energy—there is a lot to divvy, so I don’t think we impinge on the other’s claim. Though I can see room for decades worth of debates over the exact partitioning between the two claims. For right now, squabbling would be pointless; we must kill the djinni first. The majority favors/knows the dark energy "solution." Very few see it as a rhetorical djinni... I am glad to see that you're a skeptic also.

 

I believe the Dominium has more of a claim to supplant dark-matter over your RAD-model account. Reason: the mass signature was detected studying the lensing of very distant objects. Dark-matter, as I understand, was/is measured by the lensing that occurs between galaxies (where traditional rote predicts none to exist.) The Dominium does give an account that matches the "anomalous" measurements of its existence--purged opposite type materials, much of it smashed down to the black-hole phase of existence.

 

What the Dominium asserts is that the galaxies were like full sponges at the time that galactic boundaries were first drawn. Because of gravitational repulsion the “liquid” w/in the sponge was purged spherically outward. Because of ever-acceleration expansion, purged material most likely has never reached the closest like-typed galaxy. Also, the Dominium predicts that much of this purged material would be in the form of highly stable and nearly undetectable black-hole material.

 

In contrast, although the RAD-model may mask 80% of the space-time affect, that would not put any material between galaxies. Therefore, it would not produce conditions similar to what was read to be a gravitational presence of "dark-matter."

 

Neucleogenesis Cool, very cool. Agreed there seems to be a high degree of synergy between the two models. The first two paragraphs on this subject I am in complete agreement with you.

 

However, when you continue on and talk about “six fundamental stable clusters of quark sets,” I am left scratching my head a little. Here is the sequence I see you presenting:

 

quark ==> quark set ==> quark set cluster ==> baryon

 

It seems to me that you are taking an unnecessary step. Why can’t you just go:

 

quark ==> quark set ==> baryon

 

As stated in the other post, due to the near chaos of the Big Bang, quark sets would have been randomly distributed. Remember also the Dominium assertion that it was the advent of Immiscibility that caused the ring/barbell configuration to become cemented. Now there is wiggle-room in this conclusion.

 

One possible solution is that both paths are correct. If some baryons are made directly from quark sets, that does not preclude others from being made via quark clusters. (Actually a mixed condition sounds more statistically acceptable.) In other words, as immiscibility began to become established, both baryons and quark-set-clusters were produced.

 

Now, the question posed to the RAD-model by the Dominium would be a question of overcoming immiscibility. Could quark-set-clusters overcome conditions of immiscibility to form baryons? At this time, I don’t believe this is an answerable question.

 

Another unanswered question is, "Would collision lead to total annihilation or is it possible for partial annihilation + baryon to occur?" This would need to be tested in conditions like these can be produced in the lab.

 

A question from me to you is, "Has anyone every created a quark-set-cluster in the lab?" This is your area. If you have a link (if the answer is yes) I'd be very interested.

 

Actually, the answer to that quandary is not necessary for us to continue. The question at this juncture is a question of statistics and probability, "Which forms would be most likely to pervail and persist?" My money is on the ring/barbell conjoined duo. The equations to prove this would no doubt be complex, I cannot think of another combination that would be such a natural and stable knot.

 

Remember that initially, because of the randomness, density, and extreme-energy of the matrix initially, all possible combos of collisions would be expected. But this condition would be replaced by another. Because gravitational interaction would possess both attractive and repulsing conditions between members, the process of self-assembly would necessitate an entropy-dropping sorting of material in the Universe. Initially collisions would be completely random. As self-assembly continues, the types of collision would become increasingly less random. After immiscibility is established, collisions between matter and antimatter would become non-existent. Ultimately, given the millennia of probabilistic collisions and coolness of the modern Universe, only the most stable forms of matter (and antimatter) would be expected to persist.

 

Given the statistical rules/trends of population dynamics, the only likely scenario is based on an argument of ultimate stabilities. The ring/barbell structure would be incredibly stable and strong...I can't imagine a strong geometric knot. A cluster of the same (clusters of three or more like-typed material,) not as stable. Statistical evolution favors the most stable forms. Therefore over time only conjoined-duos remain, and the quark-set-clusters are so rare they are unimportant to the system.

 

Probabilities & quantum realities Earlier we mentioned β-decay. That is caused, correct me, by a transmutation of quarks within a quark set (or would it be transfer between quark sets in the RAD-model?) Anyway, my point is that under certain pressures the baryon can internally adjust to the most environmentally adjusted stability. Therefore, even though there may be a plethora of mathematical diversity, the natural state will be that which achieves the greatest degree of stability. Again, the vying ring/barbell unit would be nearly “forever” stable.

 

Therefore, in answer to your question about the upper limits of conglomeration of quark bags

Originally posted by Rade

Now, perhaps the Dominion Model can supply the dynamics of this process, that is, provide the upper limit to the series number of quark bags that can be combined to form the matter proton [P] ?

I ask, “Why does there need be an upper limit?” Actually, this is a serious question. The position on the continuum of most interest is not the limits, but the point of maximum equilibrium/stability. The reason the configuration of max stability is most important because that is what statistically would be persisting after many2 millenia. As mentioned, the most stabile structure would appear to be the ring/barbell, 3:2 = 5, combination. The reason why that position is most important is because statistically and over time it will prevail while other forms perish.

 

Symmetry: You speak my language. The fact that the RAD-model is completely symmetric is a huge bonus in my book. The Dominium’s finest achievement is showing absolute symmetry between electric and gravitation forces.

[Eric]

I've communicated with you Hasanuddin on another forum, hello again.

 

Would you expect positrons from Dominium galaxies to emit photons as electrons do? I'm left with the question of whether we should be able to see/ detect antimatter galaxies from here. Then there is the question of whether we would be able to know. As we can observe galaxies beyond them, light wouldn't seem to be significantly gravitationally deflectable. Regarding cosmic rays I've seen arguments that cosmic ray detectors may not be adjusted to register atleast some of any antimatter cosmic rays. On the other hand, I don't think its clear that atleast high energy cosmic rays could be gravitationally captured by intervening antimatter galaxies. For cosmic rays above 5 x 10^19eV energy, deflections of around only 5degrees are expected by the much stronger interstellar magnetic fields.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi again Eric,

 

Good to hear from you. This is a much better forum than the one we met at. The caliber of folks here is very high.

 

Let me try to answer your questions:

”Would you expect positrons from Dominium galaxies to emit photons as electrons do?”

Yes, in every way, just the mirror operation. So then as to detecting light from antimatter galaxies, yes, we would be able to detect that light. The most perplexing question is, “Would we be able to differentiate light from an antimatter source from a matter source?” Unfortunately, the answer to that question is “No, because photon are the antiparticle of themselves, also because of perfect mirror symmetries between the dynamics of matter vs. antimatter the spectral signature of all antiatoms is expected to be exactly the same as for their mirror matter counterpart.

 

As far as cosmic rays are concerned, I don’t see the relationship you’re trying to draw or how it relates to the new model.

[Eric]

If you look at this you will see a suggestion of the sources for the highest energy cosmic rays arxiv:0711.2256. The cosmic ray expected range is thought to be about 75megaparsecs, so can reach into the next superclusters. I would assume that antimatter galaxies would emit antimatter cosmic rays as matter galaxys' emit matter cosmic rays.

 

For the cosmic rays considered in the paper deflection is only around 5degrees even from interstellar magnetic fields. Presumably antimatter gravity wouldn't be able to restrict antimatter cosmic rays through gravitational capture otherwise we would predict that cosmic rays from adjacent superclusters would be gravitationally captured in the same way - so wouldn't reach us.

 

I'm not arguing that non detection/identification of antimatter cosmic rays disvalidates Dominium, I don't know think it necessarily presents a difficulty. I don't know though whether we should have been able to detect any approaching antimatter cosmic rays with available methods. I've forgotten the source unfortunately - but I did read that new methods for such detection have been recently considered. I'll see if I can find it.

 

If some should have been identified with Dominium, there might anyway be an issue of likelihood of such collisions here depending on whether the sources are near enough or not blocked by dark nebulae eg like the very extensive 'lane' all around the Milky Way hub. Then there's the blotchy pattern of the Sachs Wolfe effect and how photons lose more energy from the interpreted domains of primordial dark energy. But these areas where photons have been relatively slightly gravitationally redshifted (losing energy through lowered frequency) are described as having become voids. The microwave background radiation domains I think are supposed to correlate with these. Then CMB and Sachs Wolfe have been correlated together with galaxy superclusters and with the intervening voids but I would doubt how accurate that claim is.

 

According to your argument though, we should be able to observe antimatter superclusters emerging from these supposed post primordial dark energy domains. That seems a bit of a shame as these 'voids' were looking like good potential antimatter domain candidates. I could just only guess that maybe photon travel gets limited by distance more when it traverses through alternate matter antimatter domains, a little like as suggested for the cosmic ray 75megaparsec limit before interference with CMB hastens decay (I've no idea how that would be either). But that looks pretty sketchy. I earlier had another idea about this, but on reflection I don't think it helps.

 

Maybe there's actually a better way to deal with non antimatter CR detection (if a problem) and the CMB supercluster/void correlations. The 'local' 'Great Attractor' is a colossul Supercluster cluster that we move towards. It is much larger than our own Supercluster. So perhaps there's a way these earlier dark energy domains morphed into larger 'Attractors' whilst with the more high dark energy/gravitational repulsive strength becoming less/non detectable through enough expansion of the universe.

 

But I'm seeing now that this Sachs Wolfe related argument anyway is likely to differ from your light attracted to antimatter view. So let me ask something about that. You say that light is the antiparticle of itself. But why should light not be deflected by antimatter in the same way as matter would be, anymore than light should be attracted to antimatter. I don't really see how you can guarantee the motion of light with respect to antimatter from your basic pattern. Wouldn't there be more symmetry in a sense if light is deflected by antimatter:

 

matter >< matter

matter <> antimatter

antimatter >< antimatter

 

then..

 

light > matter

light > antimatter

or

light > matter

light < antimatter

 

Anyway. Such distances would make cosmic rays from such sort of 'Attractor' antimatter domains more inaccessible. For that matter, distances beyond even our supercluster would make intergalactic travel to antimatter planets much more difficult (assuming we make it past an lhc operation (apologies)). But landing on an antimatter planet wouldn't be too enjoyable!

 

nb I'm afraid to tell you my sources for most of this are wikipedia.

[Rade]

Hi Hasanuddin:

 

You asked a few questions about the RAB-Model, here are some thoughts I have:

 

1.-question:

In contrast, although the RAD-model may mask 80% of the space-time affect, that would not put any material between galaxies. Therefore, it would not produce conditions similar to what was read to be a gravitational presence of "dark-matter."

1.-answer:

I would suggest as a hypothesis that the RAB-Model predicts the material between galaxies is very high energy protons [P], moving at relativistic speed. Such particles have been observed, please see this link, where it is specifically stated that proton [P] are believed to be such particles.

Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Thus, given that the RAB-Model predicts hidden antimatter within the [P], and if there are in fact many such high energy particles between galaxies, then the RAB-Model is in complete agreement with observation--the so-called 'dark-matter' between galaxies (as well as within) are predicted by the RAB-Model to be associated with baryons such as [P]---and recall, the RAB-Model also predicts dark-matter within neutrons [N], to complete the symmetry requirement.

 

2.-question:

Now, the question posed to the RAD-model by the Dominium would be a question of overcoming immiscibility. Could quark-set-clusters overcome conditions of immiscibility to form baryons? At this time, I don’t believe this is an answerable question.

2.-answer:

The RAB-Model does not make a distinction between 'quark-cluster sets' and 'baryons', they are one and the same--that is, what we call a baryon at the macroscopic level of the nucleon is nothing more than a matter-antimatter stable quantum superposition of quark-cluster sets united by the strong force and gravitivational attraction-repulsion force (at the quantum scale of distance between matter entities).

 

3.-question:

Another unanswered question is, "Would collision lead to total annihilation or is it possible for partial annihilation + baryon to occur?" This would need to be tested in conditions like these can be produced in the lab.

3.-answer:

The RAB-Model predicts yet another outcome, different from the two options you provide. The RAB-Model predicts that the superposition of matter and antimatter in the proton [P] can lead to (1) baryon formation--what in our measurements we call the "valence quarks" and (2) a hidden matter-antimatter quantum superposition--what in our measurements we call the "sea quarks". The current Standard Model does not accept such a proposition as being possible, thus, if the RAB-Model is correct, the Standard Model is at best "incomplete"--it would need to be modified to allow for the possibility of stable superposition of matter and antimatter quarks bound by a combination of the strong force and gravitational attraction and repulsion (which then is where the RAB-Model and Dominion Model show strong agreement). Well, at least this is how I see the two models interact--please let me know if I error.

 

4.-question:

I ask, “Why does there need be an upper limit?” Actually, this is a serious question. The position on the continuum of most interest is not the limits, but the point of maximum equilibrium/stability.

4.-answer:

Well, this is an important concept, and I think the RAB-Model answer is that there are multiple points of equally maximum equilibrium/stability along the continuum (not just one), that is, there are many, many ways for quark sets of matter and antimatter to form beta-stable isotopes, and each "way" has exactly the same stability (but not the same probability of existence). The RAB-Model does recognize that there is an upper limit to how many quark-sets can be united to form a baryon, and it may be possible that each isotope has its own unique number. This is an aspect of the RAB-Model that is unknown at this time. There is experimental evidence for some isotopes of distinct quark-set structures to form multiple beta-stability entities (good example is 3-Lithium-6). The RAB-Model predicts completely all experimentally observed stable cluster structures of 3-Lithium-6. Perhaps this could become a model isotope for future discussion to see how RAB-Model and Dominion Model relate ? Let me know if you have interest in such effort.

 

Please let me know if I missed any important questions or if you now have others. From what I have read about the Dominion Model is that it is completely in agreement with the RAB-Model, just two different ways to look at the same problem. RAB-Model deals with "structure", Dominion Model deals with 'function". The dialectic of the two provides understanding of baryons and quarks in a new physics manner that differs from the Standard Model.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Eric,

 

I looked at the paper you mentioned, [0711.2256] Correlation of the highest energy cosmic rays with nearby extragalactic objects To me, it seems to present more questions than it answers. I’ll have to read a little closer to see their methodology, but it appears that the papers conclusion is that the origin of highest cosmic rays energy cosmic rays is from between galaxies and that their arrival is not isotropic. Both of these conclusions go against best understandings (though that means only a little.) Facts are facts, the real question is are these truly reliable “facts.”

 

The middle of your post I don’t agree with. I’m not a big fan of arguments based on dark-energy, or other overly complex mechanisms to occur. Nor do I understand how the large number seemingly unrelated concepts pertain to this thread. Perhaps I missed something.

 

The end of your post was interesting, though again I respectfully disagree. The logical conclusion is that antimatter attracts light. You see, photons are the antiparticles of themselves. Therefore, a photon has as much in common with a proton as it does with an antiproton. If the proton attracts it, therefore so too should it be towards an antiproton.

 

Now, that said, you were wise to look for symmetry. I believe symmetry in this situation might be found examining the dynamics of light toward charge. I don’t know if an experiment to study the effects of charge on the path of light has ever been committed. I believe that it is very possible that ultra high point charges could cause light to deflect. If this is true, then it would complete the symmetric set of relationships between matter and antimatter and also between gravitational and electrostatic systems.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Rade,

1: Which part of the dark-matter reading is accounted for by Dominium & which by the RAD-model

As I mentioned originally this is not an area I wish to argue at this point. Both the Dominium and the RAD-model appear to have two valid claims for the influences that caused both the readings of “dark-matter” and the necessity of the “dark-energy” djinni construct. As mentioned, in the decades to come, there will be plenty of time for all to quibble over the exact partitioning.

 

For us here and now, the goal is to kill the djinni. Expose the construct for what it is: an unverified, extremely-complex, extremely hard to pin-down, and never-before measured “thing” that acts like nothing else in nature, but that conveniently solves all the problems of the particle-physics legacy assumptions. It is on par with the ancient notion of spontaneous generation of muck to eels (because naturalist couldn't detect baby eels because eels migrated across the Atlantic to the Sargasso Sea.) Actually, the dark-energy djinni is worse than the notion of spontaneous generation because it has more "moving parts."

2: Immiscibility and going from monochromatic quark-cluster set (qcs) to conjoined duo baryons.

I understand that the RAD-model does not weigh in on this topic, the Dominium does. This is why I say that it is currently an unanswerable question. This is a question that would possess degrees of answer, depending on the degrees of starting conditions. Under low-energy conditions (like on Earth) the answer mat very well be that immiscibility prevails. Conversely, under higher energy conditions, the possibility becomes a reality. Knowing the cut-off point is impossible for either of us. Acknowledging that there could be a cut-off is just a note to a future experimenter who might get funding to examine that question.

 

With regard to the question, "Would collision lead to total annihilation or is it possible for partial annihilation + baryon to occur?"

You appear to have forgotten to mention “annihilation. To the outcome of the collision of matter with antimatter, you only give two possible scenarios, either baryon formation or superposition. How can you leave annihilation out of your list?

 

Reading on what exactly are you calling superposition?… could not all this just be thought of as a ring/barbell conjoined duos? Seriously, that geometry leads to an almost superimposed type of configuration… but “knot” quite.

 

Then, I read an interesting definition of a condition of the system,

in our measurements we call the "sea quarks"

Hmm, I think to myself. I can see a “sea of quarks” during Big Bang evolution but not at the moment of collision, but in the initial moments of the Big Bang. But that’s not what you're talking about. {For what its worth, I really don’t like made-up definitions that detract from what is being described.}

Question: if it’s “hidden matter-antimatter superimposed” why invoke the ocean?

 

But back again, my biggest issue with this section is that you don’t mention how/if annihilation fits into collision.

4 Whether the limits or the point of max stability is currently of max importance

At this point in time, the RAD-model is still on the drawing board (or more correctly, on the whipping post blog-stage. Cool, so is my model.) The goal is to first show that your model matches with truths that we all know to be true. That is the initial litmus test of any new scientific model.

 

Therefore the goal is to figure out what form(s) possess the highest degrees of stability because those would be the ones that would persist for billions of millennia. I think I can weigh in. For example:

 

Would a 9-qcs be more of less stable than a 12-qcs?

Ventured answer: the 9-qcs could form a triangle or line. The triangle is most stable of geometric figure. While the 12-qcs could from a quadrilateral, which although relatively stable, compared to the triangle is not at all.

 

Similarly, a pairing would expect to have a degree of stability, but again, would lose against the triangle.

 

When I say “lose” I’m talking about in a high impact collision. All of these particles will be bombarding each other. Therefore, they’ll each break to form more stable particles or merge to form more stable particles. Hence after millennia only the most stable particles will remain. Therefore structural 3-D integrity and stability would be key. The match is so perfect for the ring/barbell conjoined dichotomy.

 

But truly, the most stable of them all would be the ring/barbell knot. Because there is two opposing teams of forces counterbalanced against each other, the net external force/stress would be zero. Neither ring nor barbell can win the battle, though the forces within are extremely strong primary forces of an unresolved battle to each primary gravitational stability. This stable 5-qsc baryon would have a net value of 1-qsc because of the masked duality of 80% of its structure.

 

The Dominium model points to the conclusion that the primary driver of a system at absolute chaos (〜100% heterogeneity of matter/antimatter, charge, etc) is gravity. The manifestation of this achieved stability is the self-sorting of matter from antimatter. This would start as soon as the baryon-knots were being formally tied.

 

Ya know, I really like this RAD-model of yours because it seems to adhere to the Guth hypothesis of “imperfections” in the heterogeneity. That’s why I used the “〜” symbol. In other words, at the Big Bang equal parts were randomly produce, but within that randomness there were fluctuations of concentration. With the RAD-model 40% of all baryons is made of its gravitational-opposites. That 40% is assimilated, not annihilated, in baryogenesis. Cool, that gives the job of self-assembly a boast, 40% of the sort is done by tying the knot.

 

Perhaps the Dominium assertion that self-assembly is the first thing to occur to achieve primary gravitational stability, is slightly incorrect. If RAD-model is correct then there is something that takes precedent to that event: tying the baryon knot.

 

One thing that just occurred to me that must be elementary for you, but I bet your RAD-model give an explanation for γ-gamma decay? That one always pissed me off. The same isotope ⇒ the same isotope plus a γ-photon. Huh? Oh ya, there’s a change in mass… huh? I also have never been satisfied by an explanation of this phenomenon. Do you mind starting there? Is there a form of Lithium-6 that goes through gamma decay? The book in front of me says no, but maybe you know of studies that do show this. Also the book says that it has an atomic mass of 6.015121 … is that still correct (it’s 10 yrs-old)? If Li-6 does have a form that goes through gamma-decay, then please start with an isotope that does. Sorry to be a putz, we can put the creation of the Universe on hold for a little while. Gamma-decay has bugged me for a long long time. I would be absolutely delighted if you could make sense of it for me.

 

I like the way you summed up the synergies between the two models

RAB-Model deals with "structure", Dominion Model deals with 'function". The dialectic of the two provides understanding of baryons and quarks in a new physics manner that differs from the Standard Model.

Perhaps? Or perhaps we are just kidding ourselves. But, I don’t think so, I’ve combed the Dominium many times and have yet to find a single flaw either within the logic or within the categorical scientific premises used.

 

I must say, there are many admirable things about your RAD-model. Too bad I am just one man.

Whether our models ever get traction remains to be seen. It is truly up to the silent readership. Only if “enough” people within the scientific community know about these two models can they ever break through. Therefore, you need to make your RAD model more assessable.

 

 

I should probably tell all a little about myself. I know about the importance of getting the massage out about a novel item, such as our two maverick models. That’s why the book; that’s why the forums; that’s why everything. The one thing I haven’t done is formally publish Dominium papers within a journal. Oddly, I copyrighted everything in 2007 long before the book or articles were near printing. Actually, I have three paper written journal style and semi-ready to go at this site: The Dominium I’m strangely terrified of the process and haven’t even attempted to contact anyone about publishing them. Why? Because I work in a high school. I am your typical Gen-X “underachiever,” actually the truth is there were no opportunities for my generation. Even though I graduated in the top 10% of my class, the recession of the 1990’s meant no job. None of my friends got jobs. I was one step away from standing in the bread-line that formed every Sunday at the Lutheran book-store. Long strong short, out of desperation I applied for p/t work at the schools, and ultimately found that I was very good at it and that it got near absolute contentment. Having the summers free meant that I had three months to take educational sabbaticals, enroll in classes, and do formal research in any of the local universities. UMASS Boston had the most convenient library for me to do my research for the Dominium. CERN, nine years ago, is where I learned and worked all summer in the HST program. NASA (space-camp) is where I learned additional aspects of cosmology. And then in 2007 was an MIT symposium that introduced me to self-assembly from a nanotechnology lecturer. This is also the time that the Dominium was first being written. I love science. Back in grade-school kids used to tease me dubbing me “nature boy” because I have always been so fascinated about every single aspect of science. Actually, the moniker never really bothered me, I could never understand how those same classmates could be so obtuse when it came to the natural beauty that is essentially everywhere. So basically, I’m just a humble man who loves all the sciences. I live in, of all places, Dot Mass (Dot is the locals name for Dorchester; Mass is the short version of Massachusetts.) I don’t know how to publish these papers. I do not know procedures. I do not know who to call or talk to. What I do know is that the Dominium model is damn near perfect. If anyone does know something about journal publishing—the summer starts next Friday—please write me a private-message on this board.

 

ps Rade: check you mailbox on this board

[Eric]

Hasanuddin

I recognise the point about a photon reacting to a proton as it would to an antiproton.

 

My difficulty is the issue of why the photon is attracted gravitationally in the same way as (non antimatter) matter is. By applying the idea of the photon as an antiparticle of its itself to this, it seems to leave a puzzle to me as to why the photon should follow the matter pattern for attraction to matter - as opposed to a repulsion or perhaps more predictably - non deflection pattern

 

Of course the last doesn't apply in practice. I'm not really that clear that anti particle of itself is the right sort of way to look at a photon, I would have maybe non-matter (as implied by zero mass) and energy transmission through liquid-like ether particles that make up space. This is what Christian Huygens argued.

 

The question of light in reaction to charge is very interesting. This may even be an untried area of research. One might assume neutrality has been found. But having a cheap laser beam and having purchased a 9V battery and table salt; I'm going to see if any slight deflection can be seen from the other end of the flat, esp with a magnifying glass. Any deflection may still not be detectable though. If your saying any sort of charge to light deflection effect would be relevant to light re. gravity and antimatter - I would agree. But if it were true - and has not been researched before - that would open up a whole new area of itself.

 

I'm aware of the hazard of laser light.

[Rade]

Hasanuddin,

 

You asked a few questions and made a few comments. Here are some answers I have:

 

1-Comment:

...Would a 9-qcs be more of less stable than a 12-qcs? Ventured answer: the 9-qcs could form a triangle or line. The triangle is most stable of geometric figure. While the 12-qcs could from a quadrilateral, which although relatively stable, compared to the triangle is not at all.

 

1-Answer: There is more to isotope stability that just the geometry of the close packing of quarks within nuclear shells. So, for example, the 9-qcs isotope (2-Helium-3) is not more stable than the 12-qcs isotope 2-Helium-4, it takes much more energy to pull apart 2-Helium-4 than 2-Helium-3. The first nuclear shell can support a maximum of 12 quarks and thus its energy level becomes closed to any additional energy and very stable when 12 quarks are present. Additional quark bags must move to the next higher quantum energy shell. Recall from before, the RAB-Model predicts that independent quarks do not exist, they must always be a bags of 2 (mesons) or 3 (baryons).

 

2-Comment:

 

One thing that just occurred to me that must be elementary for you, but I bet your RAD-model give an explanation for γ-gamma decay? .... Do you mind starting there? Is there a form of Lithium-6 that goes through gamma decay? The book in front of me says no, but maybe you know of studies that do show this

 

2-Answer:

The RAB-Model does not address gamma decay since there is no change in nucleons. This is nothing more than an isotope moving from a higher quantum energy level to a lower energy level, and in the process a photon of energy is released. 3-Lithium-6 is a stable isotope, it does not naturally undergo gamma decay.

 

However, in 2006, there was experimental confirmation that in rare events, the beta decay (B-) of the neutron [N] does show a photon being released.

See this link:

http://www.physorg.com/news85849208.html. Because some of the unstable isotopes of Lithium undergo beta-decay, then it may be possible that in rare situations a photon could be released during beta-decay for some of these Lithium isotopes--but I am not aware of any literature to suggest so (but this means next to nothing since I do not study this topic).

I have no idea how this might relate to your Dominium (sorry for previous misspellings) Model ? Perhaps you could discuss ?

 

===

 

RAB-Model Predictions for Quark Structure for Stable Isotope 3-Lithium-6

 

Let me now introduce some RAB-Model predictions for 3-Lithium-6 and you can tell me how it is either in agreement with, or in conflict with, the Dominium Model.

 

There are 3 protons [P] and 3 neutrons [N] placed within the first two energy shells. The Standard Model predicts that 4 are within the first shell and 2 within the second shell. The first nuclear energy shell is symbolically called the 1s level, the second is called the 1p. 3-Lithium-6 is also known to be stable to both beta and alpha decay.

 

Now, I am going to work first at the macroscopic level of the nucleon, rather than the quark-bag level--because it is much easier to visualize. Then we can discuss quark-bag level.

 

Let me give a diagram of the 1s and 1p energy levels with the nucleons included for 3-Lithium-6 as explained by the current Standard Model:

 

==

1s PP NN ....maximum allowed = 4

1p P N ....maximum allowed = 12

==

Note above there are two energy 'wells' for each energy shell, one that fills with protons [P] and one that fills with neutrons [N].

 

And now, here is the RAB-Model prediction for shell structure for 3-Lithium-6 (from a 1995 manuscript)

 

Probability Cluster Structure #1.

 

===

1s {[NP] + [NP]} , a single rotating entity {} of two [NP] clusters, in the core = 1s shell

1p {[NP]} , a single rotating cluster moving around the core, in the 1P shell

===

 

Thus, see that the stability of 3-Lithium-6 is predicted to be the product of 3 stable [NP] structures that interact---consider your argument of the 'stable triangle'. So, while there are quantum mechanic explanations for the stability of 3-Lithium-6 in the first diagram above from the Standard Model, the RAB-Model offers a valid alternative explanation.

 

Now, any model is only as good as experiment shows that its predictions are possible. In 2001, S. Nakayama et al. published a paper titled Cluster Excitations in 6-Li (in Proc. of International Symposium of Cluster Aspects of Quantum Many-body Systems, A. Ohnishi et al., editors). In this paper they present experimental evidence that the ground energy state of 3-Li-6 is known to have two different types of stable cluster structures: (1) {alpha + deuterium} and (2) {tritium + Helium-3}. They also found that they were able to cause individual clusters to "spin" or show resonance while the other cluster(s) remain as "spectators" and did not spin.

 

So, we find complete agreement with the experimental observations and the RAB-Model prediction for the Probability Cluster Structure #1, the alpha = {[NP] + [ NP]} and the deuterium = {[NP]}.

 

The Standard Model may well predict the first structure experimentally observed since the 1s shell is complete, but I do not think it explains the second since the Standard Model requires that the first shell (1s) be complete before filling the second (1p) with three additional nucleons. So, I do not see how the Standard Model would predict a resonating two cluster structure of [PNP] + [NPN], the first in 1s shell, the second in 1p shell, for 3-Li-6, but perhaps I error and would appreciate education on the topic.

 

Now, the RAB-Model also predicts many other cluster probabilities for 3-Li-6, including both matter and antimatter, and here they are:

 

Number of [NP], [NPN], [PNP] Clusters

=============

9 (matter), -2 (antimatter), -2 (antimatter) = 3-Li-6

6 (matter), -1 (antimatter), -1 (antimatter) = 3-Li-6

3 (matter), 0 (matter), 0 (matter) = 3-Li-6

0 (matter), 1 (matter), 1 (matter) = 3-Li-6

-6 (antimatter), 1 (matter), 1 (matter) = 3-Li-6

-9 (antimatter), 2 (matter), 2 (matter) = 3-Li-6

=============

 

The cluster probabilities in red color, first suggested in 1995 by the RAB-Model inventor, are exactly as experimentally observed in 2001. Of interest is the RAB-Model prediction that antimatter clusters also have a probability of being present within 3-Lithium-6 always in superposition with matter clusters. Thus, the RAB-Model is open to falsification if someone would look for antimatter.

 

Now, while the Standard Model also has a way to explain the stable nucleon structure of 3-Li-6 via complex interactions of independent nucleons of [P] and [N], the RAB-Model has a more simple explanation that the [P] and [N] are not independent within nuclear shells, but always exist as fundamental clusters. That is, the clusters are preexisting within the isotope--they have been present since the beginning of the universe. There are three fundamental nucleon clusters according to the RAB-Model (1) [NP], (2) [NPN], (3) [PNP]. These go by the common names, (1) deuteron, (2) triton, (3) helium-3. So-called 'halo' clusters are also possible [NN], [PP], [NNN], [PPP] which can form a quasi-stable resonance when within an isotope and bound to one of the three fundamental clusters. Of course, all of these have antimatter mirror structures, thus (1) [N^P^], (2)[N^P^N^], (3) [P^N^P^], and [N^N^], [P^P^], [P^P^P^] because the RAB-Model predicts complete symmetry between matter and antimatter.

 

Now, one can of course translate the nucleon cluster structure for 3-Li-6 to quark level. So, for one example, let us consider the RAB-Model prediction #1 for 3-Li-6:

 

1s {[ NP] + [ NP]}

1p {[ NP]}

 

this becomes the following quark cluster structures:

 

1s {[(ddu)(uud)] + [(ddu)(uud)]}

1p {[(ddu)(uud)]}

 

thus we see a 12-qcs as a rotating entity is bound to a 6-qcs as a second rotating entity and the result is a very stable isotope, 3-Li-6.

 

And then, the second Probability Stucture is:

 

1s {[(uud)(ddu)(uud)} = [PNP] = Helium-3

1p {[(ddu)(uud)(ddu)} = [NPN] = triton

 

a 9-qcs rotating into a second 9-qcs to form stable 3-Li-6.

 

[Note: all of the above is true also for antimatter helium-3 and triton]

 

Now, very important. See that this second Probability Structure violates the Standard Model prediction that the 1s energy shell must be completely filled before filling higher energy shells. The RAB-Model suggests that there are three possible 'wells' within each shell: (1) a 6-qcs well, (2) a 9-qcs well, and (3) a 12-qcs well. The RAB-Model also predicts that there are three different ways for the 1s shell to be stable: (1) there could be a 6-qcs, the deuteron [NP] cluster, which is stable, (2) there could be a 9-qcs, the 2-helium-3 [PNP], which is stable, (3) there could be a 12-qcs, {[NP]+[NP]}, the alpha or 2-helium 4, which is the most stable. The RAB-Model also predicts quark-bags not possible within the 1s shell, [NPN], [NN], [PP], [NNN], [PPP], thus the model provides beta stability selection rules, that is, various stable quark-sets that can be bonded to form beta-stable isotopes, of which there are many.

 

One could also diagram the matter + antimatter quark bag probabilities from above, but I will stop here and see if there are any questions.

 

One question I have--is anything presented above in conflict with predictions of the Dominium Model ? Do you see how 3-Li-6 could be formed in the early universe by union of rotating quark-bags in the various ways predicted by the RAB-Model ? It is known that Lithium was present very, very early in the universe, I believe at the exact same time as deuterium and helium isotopes. This would be in agreement with the RAB-Model because 3-Li-6 is predicted to be formed by the three fundamental clusters that would have been available in random manner to be so bonded.

 

If there is interest, I will next compare the structure of 3-Li-6 to 3-Li-7 as predicted by the RAB-Model, the only other stable isotope of Lithium. Then, I will discuss the RAB-Model predictions for the unstable Lithium isotopes and show how the RAB-Model predicts all the various beta-decay cross sections of Lithium to other elements. As I mentioned before, the RAB-Model is a model of the atomic nucleus that is complete, that is, it explains the nucleon structure for all known beta stable and unstable isotopes. It completely explains all known fusion and fission processes. The RAB-Model does not need other models to help explain structure of light or heavy isotopes, it is complete within itself. However, the RAB-Model may well require the Dominium Model to help it explain the dynamics of the quark interactions. This is what I try to understand by posting on this thread. My goal is to see if we can falsify the hypothesis that the Dominium Model helps explain the RAB-Model. If we find we cannot so falsify, then we have something of great importance.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Eric,

 

As to the question of why photons are attracted to matter. Well, such a question is practically a moot point because it is a known fact that has been verified many times over. Using ultra large masses, like a black-hole, we have been able to see light bend—this data all points to an “attractive” nature. However, using kitchen objects, magnifying glass and a stopwatch, you would never be able to see those photons bend within your because of gravitation between objects. Even so, there are a lot of empirical observations of shimmers in cosmologic data that are directly implicated by this extremely predictable phenomena. Therefore, one can accept that matter gravitationally attracts light—almost categorically by this point in time.

 

As far as making light bend because of electric charge, you’re going to need a lot more than that 9V. Actually, I was thinking of a concentration of charge on par with the amount of matter in a black-hole meeded to cause light to visibly bend. Such a concept is certainty imaginable, therefore it is a situation that might someday exist within the Universe—if it does not already or has not in the past. However, having an amount of charge that is so big would fry the Earth. (Though I guess producing a spot of charge similarly concentrated, would be less hazardous than producing a sample of stable micro black-hole material. I say this because we know that a stable black-hole does only one thing—compact matter down smaller than 99.9% of its “normal” size, a person could be made to fit inside the space of a virus.) The only fate of breached containment of a concentrated charge sample that can be deduced, given the known nature of charge, is for the charge-particles to repel against each-other causing dispersal in all directions to achieve stability.

 

Actually, your post right now meshes quite well with the last post (Move 16) on to the part 2 thread. http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/19536-the-dominium-model-part-2-a-2.html#post268865 You see, Move 16 paints a picture of when the Universe reaches a condition where charge within the entire Universe is becoming less heterogeneous. Each dominium territory is gradually losing one type of charge and gaining the other. The Milky Way, for example and all other matter-based galaxies, are losing positrons, and both gaining and retaining electrons. As a result, the entire Milky Way dominium is gaining negative charge. As this charge is gained affects of increased charge at the invisible, yet tangible, bubble-boundaries between dominia. Especially it the object/lightsource in the far-ground was aligned with a side/long view along a dominial bubble boundary. Therefore, it is at the boundaries, and in the future, that one could expect charge built up to such a massive amount that it would start bending/repelling light. Eric, I believe that if the assertion that charge has the ability to bend light (through repulsion) will be an observed, rather than experimentally synthesized, observation.

 

If “enough” charge is concentrated at dominial borders, then one would expect to view two opposite sheerings of light. The manifestation of the data would appear as a thread or line, resembling a cross-section of what one views by looking through soap bubbles. The boundary would cause the data to be affected in three main regions. Assuming matter-based galaxy on the left, antimatter on the right; therefore electrons would accumulate on the left, while positrons accumulate on the right.

 

1. Light passing just to the left of the wall of electrons would be sheered left.

2. Light passing just to the right of the wall of positrons would be sheered right

3. Light passing through the middle

 

Therefore the predicted future observation would appear like a set of parallel lines of reduced photon counts… because of this electro-repulsive sheering. Perhaps, some day, data that appears in that form will be observed and recorded.

[Eric]

Hasanuddin

 

I think you're implying I was thinking my sort of test could also check for gravitational deflection, but I thought you recognised that I was already aware of gravitational deflection of light (mercury's light for example). My argument is that specifically attractive gravitational deflection of light doesn't follow from your model. I also don't see why we should argue that light is the antiparticle of itself as opposed to 'a different kettle of fish'.

 

On what basis should any charge based deflection be on the same level of that of gravity?: electromagnetic forces are 10^38 x stronger than gravitational That's why I would assume the result would have been known one way or another if there is deflection. Anyway, even without such a disparity, to compete with masses like the sun - you woudn't need to compress the charged matter at all. But you would need an awful lot of one type of charge in that amount of volume.

 

So far, I tried testing deflection of laser light running close and parallel to a bare live 12V wire - no deflection was apparent.

[Hasanuddin]

Hello Rade,

 

I’m sorry I’ve been slow at response, I was ending the school year. Grades dues, etc.

 

I want to respond to post 114 but you’ve got me confused. I thought a basic premise of the RAD model was the idea that protons, for example, are a conjoined conglomeration of 5-qcs. However, in the opening of post 114, you state that He-4 is made of only 12-qcs. I’d agree with that if we were talking in terms of concensus understanding He-4 is assumed to be made of 12 quarks. But under the RAD-model, shouldn’t He-4 be composed of 20 qsc for a grand total of 60 individuals, where 36 are quarks and 24 antiquarks? Which leaves a net of 12 matter-based quarks?

 

Please address this confusion before we go on.

[Rade]

I want to respond to post 114 but you’ve got me confused. I thought a basic premise of the RAD model was the idea that protons, for example, are a conjoined conglomeration of 5-qcs. However, in the opening of post 114, you state that He-4 is made of only 12-qcs. I’d agree with that if we were talking in terms of concensus understanding He-4 is assumed to be made of 12 quarks. But under the RAD-model, shouldn’t He-4 be composed of 20 qsc for a grand total of 60 individuals, where 36 are quarks and 24 antiquarks? Which leaves a net of 12 matter-based quarks? Please address this confusion before we go on.

This is an excellent question. Here is my understanding of the situation.

 

Recall that the RAB-Model predicts that 2-helium-4 (the alpha) was formed in the early universe from strong bonding between two deuterium [NP], which then completed the first quantum 1s nuclear energy shell.

 

So, {[NP]+[NP]} = 2-helium-4 according to the RAB-Model.

 

This is possible when you consider that each [NP] is a boson and thus follow Bose-Einstein statistical dynamics that then allow for individual [NP] within distinct good quantum numbers to form union. Each [NP] has unique spin, angular momentum, magnetic moment, parity, etc, and it is thus possible for two [NP] to form a very stable union under certain conditions, which is what we call 2-helium-4, a very stable isotope indeed.

 

For the above to happen, individual [N] and [P] must first be bonded to form the stable [NP]--this would have happened very, very early in the formation of the universe. Recall from previous post that the RAB-Model predicts the following quark structure for these independent bayrons:

 

Matter Proton [P] = {(uud)(ddu)(uud)} + {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}

 

Matter Neutron [N] = {(ddu)(uud)(ddu)} + {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}

 

Recall that the RAB-Model predicts there is a matter<-->antimatter plus attractive gravity <-->repulsive gravity interaction allowing for the above stable coexistence of matter and antimatter WITHIN the [P] and [N] quark confinement.

 

However, there is not a similar interaction predicted BETWEEN any two individual nucleons, [P] and [N]. Thus, when, in the early universe, the [P] and [N] quark-bag structures came together, that is, when these two interacted randomly in localized areas of space and time in the early universe:

 

Matter Proton [P] = {(uud)|||||(ddu)(uud)} + {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}

 

Matter Neutron [N] = {(ddu)|||||(uud)(ddu)} + {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}

 

there would be instantaneous annihilation between the mirror matter-antimatter quark bags BETWEEN the [P] and [N] (between those in red color and those in blue color). I included the ||||| to highlight the fact that the quark bags to the right (>) of ||||| are within the "sea" area of the baryon confinement, and the quark bags to the left (<) of ||||| are within the baryon core (also called the valence quarks). Thus the final result of this annihilation process would be:

 

{(ddu)} + {(uud)} = {(ddu)+(uud)} = [NP], stable duterium

 

In summary, the RAB-Model only predicts the attractive gravity <---> repulsive gravity, matter <--->antimatter interactions WITHIN the [P] and [N] quark confinement.

 

Important to note however, the RAB-Model does allow for mass asymmetrical nucleon clusters to coexist within isotopes, that is, it is possible to have for example antimatter clusters of deuterium [N^P^] to coexist with matter clusters of [NPN] or [PNP] within isotopes for the simple reason that the RAB-Model predicts that the quantum interaction is at the level of quark bags and not individual quarks.

 

Thus, 2-helium-4, does not have the extra "hidden" quark bags that you discuss for the simple reason that they underwent an annihilation process during the formation of 2-helium-4. Perhaps this explanation also helps to answer one of your previous questions, that is, how-where does RAB-model predict that matter+antimatter annihilation does (did) exist in the early history of the universe. The RAB-Model predicts significant such annihilation but only when similar mirror quark-bags interacted.

 

Of course, all I said above is true for antimatter 2-helium-4.

 

I hope this makes sense, let me know if not.

[Hasanuddin]

Eric,

 

Please try not to focus around I's and you's. One thing I've learned from this forum is that if those words can be avoided, they should be. Honestly, criticism was never intended. Simply I am trying to understand your meaning.

 

For example, in this last post it was said:

Originally posted by Eric in post 116:

I thought you recognised that I was already aware of gravitational deflection of light (mercury's light for example).

Sorry, but I am completely unaware or this position and also this example. What I was referring to was gravitational lensing, e.g. Gravitational Lensing

 

Next it is stated

Originally posted by Eric:

My argument is that specifically attractive gravitational deflection of light doesn't follow from your model.

Okay, how, why, and supply a hyperlink or some other evidence to back this assertion up. Or, go back to what I posted earlier, and give reason and or evidence why such assertions are flawed.

 

The next statement needs clarification

Originally posted by Eric:

I also don't see why we should argue that light is the antiparticle of itself as opposed to 'a different kettle of fish'.

First off, the Dominium position is to accept the consensus opinion that light is the antiparticle of itself as a basic premise. Never on these thread have I argued that case, though I suppose a hyperlink needs to be supplied to back up this basic premise Antiparticles

 

The combination of the known phenomenon of gravitational lensing and the accepted theory that light is the antiparticle of itself is what leads to the conclusion that antimatter will interact with light in the same manner that matter is known to, i.e., attraction.

 

Finally post 116 is ended with

Originally posted by Eric:

On what basis should any charge based deflection be on the same level of that of gravity?: electromagnetic forces are 10^38 x stronger than gravitational That's why I would assume the result would have been known one way or another if there is deflection. Anyway, even without such a disparity, to compete with masses like the sun - you woudn't need to compress the charged matter at all. But you would need an awful lot of one type of charge in that amount of volume.

 

So far, I tried testing deflection of laser light running close and parallel to a bare live 12V wire - no deflection was apparent.”

Please reread post 115. The amount of charge needed to cause light deflection would be on par (which does not mean the same) as the amount of mass needed to cause gravitational lensing. 12 V?...not even close. Sorry

[Eric]

Hasanuddin

 

I think its upto moderators to suggest my wording style is inappriate, I was simply responding to the perception that you believed I was hoping to also test gravitational repulsion later at my flat.

 

According to Theory: Antiparticles (SLAC VVC)

'force carrier particles cannot be classified as either matter or antimatter.' Force carrier particles are not listed under matter or antimatter in this link. The link you gave may not have responses by actual physicists - as a bulletin board system is referred to at the top.

 

I don't see that my criticism about light re. gravity and matter relates to a link. I was considering the logical implications of your premises if light can be assumed to be slotted into it. It seems to me it should then follow that light would deflect both towards and away from matter. If light reacts to matter gravitationally irrespectively of whether it is the (massless) matter or (equivalent) antimatter attribute that does so; why shouldn't light just aswell be deflected away from matter as antimatter would be?

 

I cannot find where you argue in that post why light deflection by charge would be of the same order as deflection by gravity.