The Dominium model by Hasanuddin

[Hasanuddin]

Erasmus00,

 

Nothing in post 49 supports that claim that pair-production is verifiable asymmetric. Therefore, there is no actual challenge against the six steps presented to go from Big Bang to Universe w/ galaxies that is expanding

[Erasmus00]

Nothing in post 49 supports that claim that pair-production is verifiable asymmetric.

 

Again, it depends on WHAT you pair produce. e+, e- pairs are symmetric. B mesons production would not be. I gave the BaBar reference in the previous post.

[modest]

Nothing in post 49 supports that claim that pair-production is verifiable asymmetric.

Again, it depends on WHAT you pair produce. e+, e- pairs are symmetric. B mesons production would not be. I gave the BaBar reference in the previous post.

 

Perhaps this link will help,

 

The BaBar team has studied the thousands of gigabytes of data produced by the BaBar detector since it started operations in 1999, looking at the decay patterns of millions of neutral B and anti-B mesons. After they emerge from the collisions of electrons and positrons, the mesons live for less than a millionth of a second before decaying into other particles. Among the many ways the mesons can decay, the scientists were looking for the rare events that turned Bs into K+pi- pairs and anti-Bs into K-pi+ pairs.

 

According to theory, CP symmetry would dictate that the two events have the same odds of happening. Hence, by starting with equal numbers of Bs and anti-Bs one should end with equal numbers of K+pi- and K-pi+ pairs. However, the BaBar collisions produced 910 K+pi- pairs but only 696 K-pi+ pairs.

 

What is direct CP violation?

 

Hence B mesons produce pion-kaon pairs asymmetrically.

 

1) E=mc2 leads to equal matter and antimatter -- known fact

This is not correct.

 

~modest

[Hasanuddin]

Erasmus00,

 

All the first step says is

Hasanuddin said

1) E=mc2 leads to equal matter and antimatter -- known fact

to this in post #40

Erasmus00 said Not only is this not a known fact, its wrong.[/b]

Since that moment all I have been asking for is evidence/proof for the legitimacy of the objection raised. To date, none has been given. Please supply this evidence that pair-production is a verifiably asymmetric process or drop objections to the six-step scenario provided.

[freeztar]

Erasmus00,

 

All the first step says is to this in post #40

Erasmus00 said Not only is this not a known fact, its wrong.[/b]

Since that moment all I have been asking for is evidence/proof for the legitimacy of the objection raised.

 

[math]E=mc^2[/math] equates energy and mass, not matter and anti-matter.

 

Please supply this evidence that pair-production is a verifiably asymmetric process or drop objections to the six-step scenario provided.

 

If you have not already read Erasmus's and Modest's posts above, then I suggest you do so.

[Hasanuddin]

we are chasing our tails for nothing, continue on to the next post

[Hasanuddin]

I just realized something that we have all forgotten, discussions here are forgetting a fundamental aspect of Babar and other attempts to show asymmetric decay. These discussions are ignoring the fact that only a handful of all events showed any possible asymmetry. The vast majority (well over 99%) of all events at Babar were normal symmetric pair-production. The status quo “solution,” re: the Big Bang, was to assume that all of the mass created symmetrically would have gone out of existence via annihilation, hence leaving us with an all-matter Universe. However, that assumption assumes "universal attraction" hence annihilation would be promoted rather than discouraged. On this thread were are also considering the necessary repercussions of gravitational repulsion.

 

We've already had this discussion back in Move 1-3. True, the status quo solution for all the excess antimatter is that is annihilated away... but that is not the deductive conclusion given gravitational-repulsion. What I'm saying is that even assuming Babar is 100% correct, the predictions of the Dominium necessarily follow. Consider, if the rate of asymmetric decay to normal pair-production was at a rate equal to what was seen at Babar, pre-annihilation extermination we’d see ratios of 49:51. It would still be a system at absolute chaos; it would still predictably undergo self-assembly; it would still clump; and it would still result in expansion. Even if ratios were much more skewed than anything ever recorded at Babar, say 40:60, Moves 1-3 would still deductively follow. And the six-step route via self-assembly to a Universe of galaxies and expansion would still necessarily occur.

 

However, because of the flat event horizon (and the discussions of Move 4) it is much more likely that ratios ended up being closer to 50:50 rather than majorly skewed.

[Hasanuddin]

Without further delay…

Next move—#6

 

Up until this point, everything has been done with only one questionable assumption—the Dominium premise itself. In order to analyze the Dark Event, we need to expand our considerations. That means we need to make predictions about things whose nature is still unknown and debated. I am referring to black-holes. We know these are extremely common/ubiquitous features of the cosmologic map—every galaxy is known to have at least one supermassive black-hole at its center. Because of their ubiquity, any model/analysis of cosmology needs to take them into account. However, there are many conflicting theories for these natural and common objects. Instead of latching on to someone else’s previous model, for the sake of this deductive analysis we start from the basics and a clean slate. We need to establish a categorical truth concerning black-holes to be used as a premise to allow the construct to further expand and produce more categorical implications.

 

So what is a black-hole? These fundamental structures at the cores of galaxies seemed to have come into being extremely early on and before the advent of light, which is exactly (possibly) the time-period that we are now considering, i.e., the Dark Event where immiscible boundaries formed between areas of matter vs. areas of antimatter.

 

Astrologic studies have also implicated the birth of newer/younger black-holes via star collapse. Black-holes formed via star-collapse generally occur in stars bigger than our Sun. Collapse occurs during the late phases of a star, wherein the star has become increasingly dense. Although no-one knows for certain the exact causes, the collapse is always sudden, quick, and completed in an instant. This type of collapse is very similar to many natural examples where a stable system becomes slowly but increasingly unstable leading to an ultimate cataclysmic collapse. The sudden collapse is a function of the system reorganizing itself to achieve maximum stability under a radically different configuration. Many familiar childhood games are built on the principle of taking a relatively stable system and moving it towards increasing instability and finally collapse to a radically different more stable configuration, e.g., Jenga, Don’t-Break-the-Ice, Don’t-spill-the-Beans, etc. At their basics, all natural cases exhibiting cataclysmic collapse involve a stable system that shifts slowly but to increasing instability. All such natural cases involve slow shifts resulting in imbalance between basic forces. Hence, two new categorical premises arise for use of this quizzical/deductive analysis.

۞ Hence black-hole collapse in an event that was cause by an imbalance of forces

۞ And also, if black-hole collapse is like other physical systems that collapse, then after collapse the system achieves a condition with much a higher level of stability

 

Check to nature: Match. Black-holes appear to be highly stable. Empirical evidence suggests that material that enters a black-hole stays in a black hole.

 

Note: there is no secondary test of a popular bias theory because on the subject of black-holes, the Dominium premise and the Universe Attraction premise are in united agreement. For either path, like-typed particles attract.

[Hasanuddin]

Move 7

 

Tangential evidence supports the notion that black-hole material is the most stable form of matter (and/or antimatter.) Consider the phases that everyone knows: solid, liquid, gas … right? But that’s not all, is it? Plasma is another phase at the high end of the spectrum, where particles are ultra energetic and electrons do not couple with nuclei. Now, what about the other end of the scale? Couldn’t there be something more stable than solids? Yes, such a thing is imaginable. A state so stable particles barely moved at all, right? All of the trends that are demonstrated by the other phases (density, particle motion, temperature, etc) would continue w/out contradiction with consideration of black-hole being the next step down. Therefore the sequence of phases would be:

plasma, gas, liquid, solid, black-hole.

 

Now that our premises have been established with regard to black-holes:

۞ They form as a result of an imbalance of forces directed inward and favoring collapse

۞ They represent the most stable phase of nature,

 

We can reexamine our two test-hypotheses (GR and UA) and how they would both be expected to influence the system at the moment of the Dark Event, i.e., the beginning of the process that led to an established equilibrium/immiscibility. The first phase of this process is the establishment of immiscible boundaries dividing areas populated by matter from areas of antimatter. When the boundaries first formed, they would be analogous to the many boundaries between air and shampoo in a thoroughly shaken bottle of shampoo, while in other regions air might predominate and a reversed condition would appear as suspended globs of shampoo within the air. For what was to become the Milky Way, boundaries would have established globs of antimatter suspended in a matrix of matter.

 

For this discussion we call the globs of underrepresented material “micelles,” after the term used for structures formed when opposite-type (hydrophobic) materials are forcibly mixed in with like-type (hydrophilic) counterparts. The underrepresented opposite-type forms micelle structure spontaneously via self-assembly. Because of this exceedingly tight analog common within nature, using the same word is appropriate.

 

Now consider the conditions just in terms of the resulting force vectors. The Dominium premise, produces extreme conditions within the micelle. Gravitational attraction between like particles of the monoculture micelle itself, will all point inwards, therefore, favoring collapse. Also, gravitational repulsion vectors between the parts of the micelle with All of the surrounding matrix also All point inward, therefore, favoring collapse. The resulting force vectors are all skewed and pointed inward.

 

If black-holes are produced by cases of imbalances of forces skew too heavily pointing inward, therefore, conditions at the onset of the Dark Event produced conditions within micelles that COULD lead to black-hole formation.*

 

*Please let it be noted that it this point there is a degree of uncertainty. Yes, force vectors were pointed in the right orientations to favor a collapse, but were these force vectors strong enough to create black-hole material? Without direct (not yet existing) data, that is an unanswerable question. However, one need not know the actual imbalances needed to cause collapse in order to approximate this question. All one need do is consider that not all micelles within the matrix will be under identical conditions. Depending on where the micelle formed within the early dominium would determine the total amount of net force felt. Those closer to the center of each dominium would experience the highest skewing and the highest magnitude forces focused inwardly.

 

Therefore, those micelles situated towards the centers of each dominium would experience the highest likelihood of crossing the threshold needed to form black-hole material.

 

**The Dark Event is a very multi-layered, complex and profound event. At this point in the discussion, full description is not yet complete, but the stage is being set. Therefore we must wait before going to the natural record to consider whether these conclusions result in a match or mismatch to what is actually observed. I wish to take consideration of the aspects of this event slowly so that people have the ability to voice consideration or concern regarding whether the steps being taken necessarily follow from the categorical (or probabilistic) steps being taken. If there are any questions, confusions, or concerns please voice them. I will post the next move once a 24hr lull on this thread occurs, but I don't want to go on if there are any confusions with what has been stated so far.

[modest]

I just realized something that we have all forgotten, discussions here are forgetting a fundamental aspect of Babar and other attempts to show asymmetric decay. These discussions are ignoring the fact that only a handful of all events showed any possible asymmetry. The vast majority (well over 99%) of all events at Babar were normal symmetric pair-production. The status quo “solution,” re: the Big Bang, was to assume that all of the mass created symmetrically would have gone out of existence via annihilation, hence leaving us with an all-matter Universe. However, that assumption assumes "universal attraction" hence annihilation would be promoted rather than discouraged. On this thread were are also considering the necessary repercussions of gravitational repulsion.

 

You'll find this addressed in more detail in post #36.

 

A proton is made from two up quarks and one down quark. An up quark is roughly 0.003 GeV/c^2 while a down quark is roughly 0.006 GeV/c^2. Added together the mass of the quark (or antiquark) constituents of a proton is 0.009 GeV [edit: sorry, that's 0.012 GeV/c^2]. This is only 1.3% of the mass of the proton (or antiproton) that these quarks (or antiquarks) make up. A proton (or antiproton) has a mass of 0.938 GeV/c^2. The 98.7% of the mass of a proton that doesn't come from quarks (or antiquarks) comes from the binding energy in the form of gluons.

 

Gluons are their own antiparticle, so we know gluons will attract antigluons gravitationally. Thus, if the Dominium model is correct a proton / antiproton would attract each other with 97.4% the force of that which a proton / proton would attract each other. This does not lead to the conclusion of the OP that matter and antimatter would separate because of gravitational repulsion.

 

Unless gluons could in some way be said to gravitationally repel other gluons the Dominium model's main argument seems faulty.

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

Did you say the gluon was massive?

 

Gluon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The gluon is a vector boson; like the photon, it has a spin of 1. While massive spin-1 particles have three polarization states, massless gauge bosons like the gluon have only two polarization states because gauge invariance requires the polarization to be transverse. In quantum field theory, unbroken gauge invariance requires that gauge bosons have zero mass (experiment limits the gluon's mass to less than a few MeV). The gluon has negative intrinsic parity and zero isospin. It is its own antiparticle.[citation needed]

[CraigD]

Did you say the gluon was massive?

More or less, yes, I did. Precisely what I said – and precise language is needed on this subject – is:

For example, for an atom of hydrogen, each of the 2 U quarks in its proton mass about 3 MeV, the 1 D quark about 6, its electron about 0.5, and the gluons binding the 3 quarks together about 926, so about 97% of its mass is in the form of gluons, a ratio roughly the same for all atomic matter.

Note that I didn’t say the invariant (rest) mass of a gluon is non-zero. Like the photon, the gluon is believed by most to have zero rest mass, but travel always at the speed of light, so have effectively a finite, non-zero “relativistic mass”.

 

So, via the distinction between relativistic mass and rest mass, the statements “gluons have rest mass zero” and “most of the mass of a proton or neutron is in the form of gluons” don’t contradict one another.

 

Usually, we only call a particle “massive” when it has non-zero rest mass. The important point in all this, however, is that even particles with zero rest mass can exert gravitational force.

[Hasanuddin]

Post 61 was one of the oddest volleys yet. It begins by quoting my epiphany in post 58 that we were chasing our tails over nothing. Yet, that quote is never addressed... neither agreeing nor disagreeing, huh? So what was the point of quoting me?

 

Moves 6-7 are now on the table, but nothing is addressed from them either.

 

Instead of addressing any issues on the table post 61 begins with a short synopsis of quarks… cool, but the point?—it doesn’t relate at all to the quote coming before it. Hmm, let me see… oh I get it, the point is to resurrect the “quarks/antiquarks and electrons/positrons are irrelevant assessment” that CraigD appeared to pose in post 36. Sorry, but quarks, antiquarks, electrons, and positrons do exist, and they existed very early on. Let me explain.

 

The questions posed by this thread begin at a Time Zero where particles have formed. In other words, at a time when quarks, antiquarks, electrons, and positrons had formed and did have relevance—therefore, they cannot be ignored or wished away. The gluons had bound and matter and antimatter defined.

 

Arguments presented are based on a time before the formation of both particles and antiparticles, also they are both speculative because they not verifiable by any tangible empirical natural evidence.

 

For example

Originally posted by Modest

Gluons are their own antiparticle, so we know gluons will attract antigluons gravitationally.

Although the postulate is presented as fact, is possesses no actual documentation. How could it? It is quite established that the gravitational interaction between much larger particles and antiparticles has never been documented… how then can anyone believe that the gravitational properties of subparticles could be known? Whether these conditions are predicted formulaically is not the same as a categorical verified piece of evidence.

 

As far as post 36 is concerned, I am aligned with 90% of what CraigD asserted in that post and I replied point by point in post 39. What I do not agree with (which Modest appears to be referencing) is,

Originally posted by CraigD

Consider, by way of explanation, that most of the mass of ordinary matter is not due to particles that are not their own antiparticles – quarks and electrons – but due to gluons.

 

No, I’m sorry, I will not consider that quarks and electrons are irrelevant. There is no basis to ignore their presence or relevance. Again, the only time they were irrelevant was before they gluons had bound to form them. However, none of the assertions on this thread had been about that time before quarks, antiquarks, electrons, and positrons.

 

Actually, I was quite happy to see:

Originally posted by CraigD

Note that I didn’t say the invariant (rest) mass of a gluon is non-zero. Like the photon, the gluon is believed by most to have zero rest mass, but travel always at the speed of light, so have effectively a finite, non-zero “relativistic mass”.

 

So, via the distinction between relativistic mass and rest mass, the statements “gluons have rest mass zero” and “most of the mass of a proton or neutron is in the form of gluons” don’t contradict one another.

I was happy to see this because it sincerely portrays the theoretical and paradoxical aspects being discussed. Also, it appears to iron-out the idea that quarks, antiquarks, electrons, and positrons are NOT irrelevant. The reason I say this is because the contradictory conclusions being made that gluons account for 97% of the mass of a proton, while having a zero rest mass necessitate that this discussion be exclusively based on conditions when gluons are, in fact, bound into quarks/antiquarks thereby supplying the relevant mass necessary to begin talking about gravitational interactions.

 

Although this is an interesting topic, it does appear to be a tangent that is not related to any of the seven moves of the Dominium. Or the fact that the Babar experiments would only establish a 51:49 ratio of matter to antimatter; that the entire system would have been in a state of chaos; that GR would result in self-assembly; that gravitational attraction would have induced clumping; and that conditions of an expansive Universe with galaxies would have been established.

 

There are now seven moves on the table and a number of other issues of relevance.

[modest]

I'm sorry if my post was unclear. I am responding to this comment:

The status quo “solution,” re: the Big Bang, was to assume that all of the mass created symmetrically would have gone out of existence via annihilation, hence leaving us with an all-matter Universe. However, that assumption assumes "universal attraction" hence annihilation would be promoted rather than discouraged. On this thread were are also considering the necessary repercussions of gravitational repulsion.

 

This quoted comment ignores what has already been established in this thread. Namely: Gauge bosons such as gluons and photons must gravitationally attract regardless because they are their own antiparticle. Most of the mass in matter or antimatter comes from gauge bosons as is revealed here:

In a hadron most of the mass comes from the gluons that bind the constituent quarks together, rather than from the individual quarks. While gluons are inherently massless, they possess energy, and it is this energy that contributes so greatly to the overall mass of the hadron (see mass in special relativity). For example, a proton is composed of one d and two u quarks and has an overall mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the mass of three valence quarks contributes around 11 MeV/c2, with the remainder coming from the quantum chromodynamics binding energy (QCBE) provided by sea quarks and gluons.

 

Quark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The gluon binding energy is by far where most of the mass of an atom exists. The comment above wishes to discuss the "repercussions of gravitational repulsion". If particles are gravitationally repulsed by antiparticles then a hydrogen star composed of matter would attract an antihydrogen star made of antimatter with more than 90% of the force the same two stars would attract if they were both matter. This is because the gluons in one would attract the gluons in the other regardless of their matter / antimatter configuration.

 

Gluons are their own antiparticles and gluons make up most of the mass of matter and antimatter. Since your model is based on the segregation of these two things by gravitational repulsion you seem to have a rather large huddle to overcome.

 

Perhaps you could propose that gluons are not their own antiparticle, but rather the only difference between gluons and antigluons is their gravitational effects. This would add another unsupported assumption to your model, but it would take care of this problem.

 

~modest

[Hasanuddin]

Now, I will play the Devil’s-Advocate game for a pause. Okay, let's pretend that the period before the establishment of particles was a time when gluons attracted because they are their own antiparticle. Fine, therefore gluons would begin to interact with one another. So? Wouldn’t such interaction just lead to the establishment of the more familiar gluon-bound larger particles and/or antiparticles? If you are trying to suggest that gluon interaction would lead to the annihilation of the 99% of expected symmetric matter/antimatter…then you have yet to make any case. You see, if gluons are the antiparticle of itself, then there really is no such thing as an “antigluon.” If there’s no such thing as a proper antigluon, then annihilation could not occur. Therefore, as the Universe would be expected to cool and reach new levels of stability, eventually proper matter and antimatter would be formed and annihilations would begin. (This is the Time Zero that begins the Dominium deductive analysis.) Assuming observations at Babar were close to accurate, pre-annihilation extermination ratios would be 49:51; GR would lead to self-assembly; like/like attraction would lead to clumping; and still the establishment of an organized evenly distributed Universe of galaxies with ever expansion would result. Hence, the gluon arguments proposed are of no consequence; and they are of no consequence precisely because they are the antiparticles of themselves.

 

The end of post 65 is full of confusion.

Originally posted by Modest

If particles were gravitationally repulsed by antiparticles then a hydrogen star composed of matter would attract an antihydrogen star made of antimatter with more than 90% of the force the same two stars would attract if they were both matter.

Sorry, according to the Dominium model, a hydrogen star could never be closed to an antihydrogen star. Remember the uncontended Dominium moves established on this thread: because of the Dark Event, establishment of immiscible boundaries, and self-assortment, galaxies are either matter-based or antimatter based. Those assertions were made very early on this thread. Please be careful not to introduce hypotheticals that are not even hypothetical.

[CraigD]

Okay, let's pretend that the period before the establishment of particles was a time when gluons attracted because they are their own antiparticle. Fine, therefore gluons would begin to interact with one another. So?

I believe Hasanuddin misunderstands the points Modest, I, and others have been making about gauge bosons that are their own antiparticles (or, equivalently, have not antiparticles), gravity, and the implications for the Standard Model (SM) if atoms of antimater actually repel atoms of mater.

 

First, “a time when gluons attracted” is not restricted to an early period of the universe, but includes right now. The main point, however, involved the SM.

 

In its present form, the SM, specifically the QCD part of the theory, predicts that gluons have no antiparticles. This is not just an arbitrary definition, but a consequence of QCD. Rewriting QCD and the SM so that it predicts anti-gluons would be a profound change, essentially, I think, throwing out the idea of color charge, and possible quarks and gluons altogether. A large body of experimental data (eg: deep inelastic scattering experiments), however, supports these theories so strongly that it's hard to imagine such a profound rewrite.

 

I get the impression, Hasanuddin, that because direct experimental confirmation that atomic mater and antimatter gravitationally attract hasn’t been published, you consider the claim is unfounded. What I and others have attempted to show in this thread is that this is not the case, but rather that the claim is supported by a large body of theory that is well experimentally verified. This helps to explain why physicist, such as those in the ALPHA Collaboration, have not made direct measurements of the affect of gravity on antimatter a top priority – the supporting theoretical evidence that it is affected as expected is considered so strong by physicists that they see little need to directly confirm it.

Wouldn’t such interaction just lead to the establishment of the more familiar gluon-bound larger particles and/or antiparticles?

If I understand your question, Hasanuddin, no.

 

It’s important to understand that, compared to the forces dominating quark-gluon interactions, gravity is very weak (about [math]10^{-38}[/math] times as strong – see the wikipedia article “fundamental interaction”), so much so that the Standard Model is considered an excellent description of these interactions even though it doesn’t include gravitational interactions at all.

 

If there’s no such thing as a proper antigluon, then annihilation could not occur.

I suspect everyone who has studied particle physics has experience perplexity and confusion leading to entertaining this assertion.

 

IMHO, key to overcoming this confusion is an understanding of what, in particle physical terms, “annihilation” means. It does not mean every elementary particle in a composite particle and its antiparticle, such as a proton and antiproton, interact with its antiparticle.

 

In the case of electron-positron annihilation, in which all particles are elementary, the positron and electron are replaced by two photons with energy and momentum equal to the electron and positron.

 

Proton-antiproton annihilation is more complicated, but in short, each of the proton’s three quarks annihilates with its antiparticle in the antiproton in a manner similar to electron-positron annihilation. Because of color confinement, the remaining gluons are left in an impermissible state, and rapidly undergo a series of transformation into other short-lived particles, neutrally charged particles such as Z bosons and particle-antiparticle pairs such as quark-antquarks and electron-positron pairs, which annihilate, ultimately producing lots of photons. The ”decay” section of the wikipedia article section “W and Z bosons” has a short discussion of this process.

[Hasanuddin]

I believe we not actually in disagreement on all levels--though there are some misunderstandings that exist between each other’s meanings.

 

First, I was sleepy when I typed “a time when gluons attracted”…I was inexact, I apologize. I was referring to the time in Big Bang creation before gluons had been bound into the cement of protons, antiprotons, etc. This time is the time immediately before the consideration of the Dominium deductive analysis. The fact that quarks and gluons (as well as antiquarks and gluons) eventually bound is a certainty evidenced by our planet and empirically gathered from astrologic observation. I also understand that when gluons, quarks, and antiquarks are momentarily freed from their bound configurations that does not last long, and their decay is pretty well understood and documented.

 

I accept the notion that 97% of the mass of both protons and antiprotons comes from the binding energy of gluons. That is fine. My position was misunderstood; I do not advocate a rewrite of QCD. I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that gluons have no antiparticle. I also accept that the gluons that were assembled in the two cases are no different than each other (i.e., gluons are just gluons.) However, that does not necessarily mean that the assemblage need be identical nor that the resulting assembled products (e.g., protons vs. antiprotons) need be anything like the parts from which they were assembled, nor do the two necessarily need be like each other (This statement is made in terms of Formal Logic, not the Standard Model.) To make any such conclusion in this direction commits the informal fallacy of Converse Accident.

 

However, I do agree with a previous statement that CraigD made with regard to the Standard Model and parity. I agree that protons and antiprotons should be expected to have the same qualities as each other. I hope it is evident to those reading this thread that the proposed qualitative relationship between matter and antimatter is the mirror relationship that is known between two other particles that possess known qualities as each other: fundamental (+) and (-) charges.

 

For charge, the known relationship is:

A<>A

B<>B

A><B

 

Whereas the proposed Dominium antimatter to matter relationship is:

A><A

B><B

A<>B

 

I believe this aligns with the Standard Model’s notion of symmetry and interrelationships between fundamental forces. Hence, the proposed relationship is not only justified, it is fundamentally justified.

 

I respect your faith in status quo theories. If the Dominium is correct, then most of the theories, to which you are now referring, I expect will remain perfectly intact. Therefore, in these, your faith is justified; as you state, those that are most believable have been verified through observation. In fact it is only a few theories are directly targeted by the Dominium, e.g., the current explanation for the solar wind, the latest reckoning to explain Integral’s mapping of the antimatter cloud surrounding the galactic center, and the current assumption for the absence of antimatter in our locale. Other theories would be only partially affected by a lens change, though fundamentally remain much the same as they are today. If the Dominium is correct, it may take many years to iron out which aspects of which theories need to be reconsidered and which are fine. But because there is a potential disruption of the applecart, via the Dominium model, it is not justified to use existing, yet uncorroborated portions of current assumptions as a means of attacking the new model. No, to discredit the new model, it is the evidentiary record, potential anomalies in the data, and/or conflicts between the new model and conflict with empirically established facts that are needed.

 

I am curious about one claim of post 67, to the notion that as time went on and the original energy of the Big Bang was dissipated that the system adjusted to reach increasingly stable configurations. Although I made this statement as a rhetorical question, it was actually an assertion that I was surprised to see contradicted. This is how it was framed in post 67:

Originally posted by Hasanuddin

Wouldn’t such interaction just lead to the establishment of the more familiar gluon-bound larger particles and/or antiparticles?

Originally posted by CraigD

I understand your question, Hasanuddin, no.

 

It’s important to understand that, compared to the forces dominating quark-gluon interactions, gravity is very weak (about times as strong – see the wikipedia article “fundamental interaction”), so much so that the Standard Model is considered an excellent description of these interactions even though it doesn’t include gravitational interactions at all.

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.

 

Can we commence the Discussion of the new model? There is a lot on the table. (And I'm going to be leaving on Monday for Italy w/ my in-laws for two weeks, i.e., forbidden access to a computer.) I would however like to get Move 8 on the block, since the Integral Satelite took that from my least comfortable most speculative portion, to one that was amazingly verified.