# The Dominium model by Hasanuddin

132 replies to this topic

### #35 modest

modest

Creating

• Members
• 4959 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 03:13 PM

However, you do not breakdown Friedmann’s assumptions to a primary level that fits with anything observable.

The primary assumptions are a universe filled with homogeneous matter and follows the theory of general relativity. The observable outcome is distance, brightness, redshift data. A full derivation from one to the other is beyond the scope of this thread, but it certainly can be done (and might be fun to do).

You simply summarized it rather than analyzing it. What you do say is That is a summary of the conclusion

Both of these are postulates:
• The universe is filled homogeneously with matter
• The universe is a heterogeneous mix of matter and antimatter which repulse gravitationally
The only way to determine which is the case is to build a theory from each postulate and see which agrees with observation. Standard cosmology is the result of building a theory on the first and it does agree with observation. Your goal should be to build a theory on the second and have it agree with observation.

As far as the Ripalda paper is concerned...

You know, all three papers I linked are relevant to your ideas, not just the first. And the second two are much more scientifically rigorous as well.

Anyway, I've gotten no response to the two questions I've asked and the feedback I offered was misunderstood, so like Moontonaman I suppose I'll leave this thread to those who want to practice their debating techniques.

~modest

### #36 CraigD

CraigD

Creating

• 8034 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 05:44 PM

A key assumption at the heart of this thread’s alternative theory, “the Dominium model”, is that antimatter and matter gravitationally repel one another. According to best accepted present-day theory, antimatter and matter attract one another, as do matter and matter, and antimatter and antimatter. This prediction, however, has not yet been directly tested.

If antimatter and matter do, in fact, repel, a large amount of particle physics would have to be rewritten, because the best theory of particle physics, the Standard Model, basically assumes that the laws of physics are symmetrical with regards to matter and antimatter – that is, were every particle in the universe to suddenly be replaced with its antiparticle, no difference would be detectable – and also that some particles, such as the two most common gauge bosons, the photon and the gluon, are their own antiparticles.

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. 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. For atomic matter to gravitationally attract atomic matter, but repel atomic antimatter, the anti-gluons in antimatter must gravitationally interact differently than the gluons in matter. However, as gluons and anti-gluons are the same particle in the Standard Model, they can’t.

There’s nothing a-priori wrong with rewriting or replacing a large amount of particle physics, or any other physical theory, if antimatter and matter do, in fact, repel. Such a revision would be, to but it mildly, a big deal, and a lot of work. Therefore, if possible, scientists would want to be sure, via clear experimental results, that antimatter and matter do, in fact, repel.

Fortunately, and unlike when antimatter was first theoretically envisioned, or later, when its existence was experimentally verified, since about 2003, such an experiment is possible, because techniques to produce many (millions) of neutrally charged atoms of very cold (about 15 K) antihydrogen are available. A simple experiment involving the release of a small amount of cold antihydrogen in a vacuum and observing if it falls down or up in a vacuum, by the easily detectable location of where it annihilates with the ordinary matter of the walls of the vacuum chamber, would suffice.

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

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

### #37 modest

modest

Creating

• Members
• 4959 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 06:55 PM

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.

Excellent point

I was assuming that if antimatter had negative gravitational mass then large clumps of antimatter would gravitationally repel matter as is naively figured here:

$-F = G \frac{-m_1 m_2}{r^2}$

But we know gauge bosons will gravitationally attract no matter what, and the gravitational mass of both macroscopic clumps of matter and antimatter is mostly the result of binding energy from guage bosons... so they must gravitationally attract regardless.

Very clever

~modest

### #38 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

Questioning

• Members
• 163 posts

Posted 05 April 2009 - 01:36 AM

Dear Modest,

I am so sorry to hear that you are leaving the thread with so many unanswered questions. Need I remind you of all of the questions, points, and issues that you have completely ignored:

2) Whether Einstein’s checkerboard representation of space-time is a model
3) The worth of the posted Einstein quote
4) The value of deduction in the evolution of scientific understanding
5) The value of the Ripalda paper’s convergent conclusions with the Dominium’s deductive conclusions
6) The merit of the blind prediction of an antimatter shield surrounding the galactic central black-hole and the subsequent ESA Integral news release outlining such a structure

I have been confused by your actions on this thread. Although you have voiced interest in the model that I am presenting, you have actually shown very little interest in discussing the model itself: the premises that were used, the conclusions that were drawn, or how that either relates to or jibes with what is naturally observed. Instead, you have only wanted to talk about theories to which you have special bias and fondness for. I’ve been tolerant of your road-blocks because silent readers might have similar questions. Besides, the musty old explanations require so many assumptions and contradictions their faults are easily viewed, especially when laid out next to the beautiful, streamlined, and simple Dominium explanations.

You gave the appearance of trying to lie out the fundamentals of your traditional old-school views:

The primary assumptions are a universe filled with homogeneous matter and follows the theory of general relativity.

the problem with your dissection of fundamentals is that there is nothing fundamental or categorical about it. There are actually multiple layers in your condensed simplification that pose more questions than they fill:
1) Why did the Universe fill? What is driving the filling? Why was there space between particles. Why did that space increase. From where was it filling? You’ll need an axiom or two to account for this.
1b) If the matter was coming from E=mc2, where’s the antimatter? You’ll need some new postulates to explain this.
2) Homologous? Why? What natural systems that are all the same stuff is homologous? Systems that self-assemble because of opposing characteristics ultimately appear homologous…but that works for the Dominium, not your bias-favorite explanation. Has there ever been a recorded explosion that is 100% homologous? Asymmetric would make sense…in order to get the system homologous (w/out self-assembly) you’ll need to add in a few extra hypotheses to prop things up.
3) general relativity Is this where all the needed postulates, axioms, and hypotheses are hidden… or does this itself possess its own individual assumptions? It has it's own host of assumptions, doesn't it?

Sorry Modest, but just because you squeezed all of your necessary assumptions, axioms, and hypotheses down to one sentence does not mean that you have just one postulate.

Hmm, I don’t think Great-Uncle Albert would be too happy. Remember what he said:

“The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.
--Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Comparing all the assumptions and axioms you actually made against those needed by new the Dominium, we see a stark difference. The steps made by the Dominium are verified by nature, accept the one central premise. No new questions are raised by these steps. And nothing appears in contradiction or violation with nature or accepted theorems. See the following:
1) E=mc2 leads to equal matter and antimatter -- known fact
2) Gravitational repulsion repels matter from antimatter only hypothetical
3) Gravitational attraction between like particles causes clumping known fact
4) Self-assembly occurs in mixtures possessing opposing characteristic that are in maximum chaos known fact
5) The result of self-assemble is a organized uniform distribution of alternating domains known phenomenon
6) Such a distribution lead to expansion deductive conclusion

Okay Modest, let us take inventory. Can you in six simple steps with only one hypothetical get from the Big Bang to expansion??? No you can’t, can you? You even said,

A full derivation from one to the other is beyond the scope of this thread

But didn’t you once describe Friedmann’s views to be “simple?” This is not a question for debate: either something is “simple” or it’s “beyond the scope” of being easily presented. It can’t be one way once and then another way again. But then again, you’ve tried to have it both ways in the past on this thread: one moment on the 18th post claiming that no sizable accumulation of antimatter exists in the Universe, then when faced with very recent ESA evidence, you flip-flop on the 22nd post and chastise me because you apparently knew about it before you were born—(an interesting concept.)

I find it comical that you make your exit by chastising me for “debate.” However, it was you who began a forum to debate by demanding that this thread stop presenting the Dominium model and instead consider your biased-preference Friedmann assumptions.

As far as the two questions you’ve demanded immediate response to, I actually can remember only one: why the antimatter accumulation exists shielding the galactic black-hole? Problem, again you ignore what I have stated. That is explained in Move 8, you have only allowed me to show five moves. To reach “8” we must pass through “6” and “7”. I already told you I would show that once we get to it… but again you ignore what’s been put in front of you on this thread.

### #39 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

Questioning

• Members
• 163 posts

Posted 05 April 2009 - 02:22 AM

Dear CraigD,

You begin your post by stating status quo theory, but end that paragraph with the by-the-way admission that no evidence exists to establish gravitational relationships one way or the other. I don’t disagree.

You are correct: if the Dominium is correct, then many models would need be abandoned because they are based on a flawed premise. But so what? Are you really comfortable with the huge number of evidentiary anomalies? Or the patchwork of little formulaic band-aid explanations that address one issue at a time, yet are not truly tied together? Or explanations without justification or verification? Again, I do not disagree with this assertion.

Now, when you start summarizing the Standard Model, I take issue. I wholeheartedly agree with your first statement.

the Standard Model basically assumes that the laws of physics are symmetrical with regards to matter and antimatter

I’m in 100% agreement. I hope you realize that the Dominium model is in 100% accordance with the Standard Model. It is the status quo popular-bias theories that necessarily must “violate” the Standard Model in order to exist. That was one of the assumptions that I was just now pressing Modest to admit. Essentially, in order to reach Friedmann’s assumptions and an all-matter Universe, the Standard Model must be violated… but that is creates a 2nd quandary rather than actually solving one.

I take issue with your oversimplification of the Standard Model by saying

that is, were every particle in the universe to suddenly be replaced with its antiparticle, no difference would be detectable

On this I disagree, in phrasing, but perhaps not in principle. Under the Dominium model, if the Milky Way suddenly became antimatter, that would have drastic implications for neighboring galaxies. What I think you mean is that under the Standard Model, matter and antimatter will have similar properties (so musings like Modest’s bizarre gravity options on post 18 would be violations)—this too, I agree with. The Standard Model notion that matter and antimatter exhibit similar properties is implicit in the Dominium assertion that within antimatter galaxies antifusion is be occurring, yet is undetectable on Earth because (of your next Standard Model assertion) that light/photons are the antiparticles of themselves.

Your third paragraph I totally disagree with. The problem is that your argument rests on the assumption that all quarks/antiquarks and electrons/positrons can be ignored. No they can’t. Sorry, you have no basis for ignoring them… except to twist a point.

Fourth paragraph. Okay. So are you telling me that scientists are just fine assuming that “universal attraction” is the case (without any corroboration); but that gravitational-repulsion cannot be considered without undeniable proof? I agree that this is the case that exists today, but I hope you see that this creates a Catch-22: how is such proof going to come if the question is never considered? No disrespect, but what I am advancing is a totally comprehensive, coherent, and complete model. There are no evidentiary anomalies. Isn’t that justification enough?

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

The seventh paragraph I cheer, but then I remember who/what I am and am lost with a feeling of uncertainty and helplessness. How? How is it possible to get the ear of folks in control? I am nothing. I am nowhere near CERN. I was born in the wrong decade, the wrong race, the wrong sex, and to the wrong family to be able to reach a position of stature and power at this point in history. I am unimportant in the eyes of society and those in power. All I have is an appreciation for nature, logic, and compassion for others. I rub no elbows, except those of strangers on the subway. But I am satisfied and comfortable with my little life—there is nothing wrong with being small and unrecognized. But I have this model… a model that is so clean, beautiful, seductive, coherent, all-encompassing and powerful. Despite my own peace and love of privacy I am putting it out there… it is just too big and important to keep to myself. But how can someone as meek, lowly, and unimportant as myself be able to show the powerful, respected, famous, and connected this apparent truth? My only hope is to show it to as many people as possible. In this forum… and in the internet itself, I see hope. Perhaps someone more connected than myself will see the beauty of it. This is why I continually call on the silent readership to tell others of this thread, this forum, and the new model. This is why I will weather any and all rhetoric abuse that is thrown my way. Besides, I have found that the nastiest and most abusive folks often bestow the greatest ultimate gifts supporting the new model. Modest (who has been quite polite compared to the rage I’ve seen elsewhere) is now the 6th detractor who ultimately presented valuable support (Ripalda’s convergent mathematically based conclusions matching the first steps of the deductive model) favoring the Dominium model. The ultimate hope is that eventually too many people will know about the Dominium model for it to be ignored. Ultimately the goal is to force those at CERN to consider this model determining which projects go forward and how.

I am also in total agreement with you, if this model is correct then a rewriting of physics would be a great thing! Everyone would benefit—even the scientists. It would herald in huge advances of unknowable proportion. There would be lots of work for everyone. Funding would surely increase. Facilities would be opened/expanded, not closed because of lack of prospects (as is now the case.) Discoveries, applications, advances… literally, the sky is the limit!

Or, if the model is correct, it could be ignored and the status quo of dead-end and evidentiary anomalies could continue for decades or centuries. As Modest pointed out early on, heliospheric models were ignored for a long time in favor of Ptolemaic math proofs. Even the Copernican solution was ignored for roughly 60 years. Will we allow history to repeat itself? The main problem is psychological… folks don’t like change, novelty, or alteration. But sometimes, change is the best thing that we can do.

### #40 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

Creating

• Members
• 1561 posts

Posted 05 April 2009 - 10:52 AM

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

Not only is this not a known fact, its wrong. There are small CP violating terms in the standard model, and so certain processes favor matter over anti-matter.

Most processes are not CP violating, but some certainly are.
• Moontanman likes this

### #41 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

Questioning

• Members
• 163 posts

Posted 05 April 2009 - 01:47 PM

Dear Erasmus00,

Hmm, so you're saying that E=mc2 (pair production), one of the most confirmed high-erengy events known, is a lie? All that LEP data is false? Huh, when I was studying at CERN nine years ago I was told by technicians that E=mc2 was one of the most documented (boring) events that occurred inside LEP. That they considered it to be such a known fact (equal amounts of matter and antimatter and positive and negative charge always produced) that the key was to filter out all the pair prodcution noise, to try to find something truly interesting. Huh, now you're trying to say that they had it all wrong? Wow... I'd be very interested if you had a point... many text books would be wrong also (which I guess isn't a big deal since most things have a degree of error to them.)

Question: are you citing data... or are your referring to a mathematical musing that is not linked to empirical evidence?

*By the way, even if you are "correct" that E=mc2 isn't perfectly symmetric, that doesn't change the Dominium deductive conclusions. Conditions do not necessarily need to be 50:50 in order for self-assembly to occur. Even if limited CP "Violation" occurs, self-assemblage of the different dominia would also occur. The galaxies would still be established and expansion would still occur. {Nice try}

### #42 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

Creating

• Members
• 1561 posts

Posted 05 April 2009 - 02:04 PM

Hmm, so you're saying that E=mc2 (pair production), one of the most confirmed high-erengy events known, is a lie?

You are confusing two things- E=mc^2 just tell us photons/etc can be converted to matter, it doesn't specify that it has to be matter/anti-matter symmetric. In general, other conservation laws (like charge), require a balance of matter/anti matter.

Huh, now you're trying to say that they had it all wrong? Wow... I'd be very interested if you had a point... many text books would be wrong also (which I guess isn't a big deal since most things have a degree of error to them.)

Any textbook written after 1965 or so should mention the CP asymmetry. The 1980 nobel prize was awarded to Cronin and someone I can't remember for this discovery. It is confirmed data (see information of Kaon oscillations).

*By the way, even if you are "correct" that E=mc2 isn't perfectly symmetric, that doesn't change the Dominium deductive conclusions.

Actually, it could. If matter is more likely to be produced in certain reactions, then its possible that after the first few moments of the big bang these reactions drove anti-matter into matter, so there was very little anti-matter left.

### #43 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

Questioning

• Members
• 163 posts

Posted 06 April 2009 - 04:36 AM

Dear Eramus00,

Words… lots of words; let’s see some asserted facts that are tied to actual natural observations and/or experimentation.

First of all, I believe that it you who are a bit confused. “CP Violation” refers to Sakharov’s suggestion of asymmetric decay… put simply, that antimatter conveniently “vanished” leaving us with the popular-bias view of an all-matter Universe. There are several facilities around the world that have tried to prove Sakharov’s assumptions (Babar, FermiLab, CERN…) but none have been able to do so beyond margins of error. One Russian detector specialist friend of mine even confided that the best “evidence” that had come out in favor of asymmetric decay could easily be attributed to a faulty CEM or other simple error. The other problem with the notion of asymmetric decay is that given the best-case fluke results (I say that because such trials couldn’t be repeated/reproduced predictably) the amount of “matter” in the visible Universe cannot be accounted for. Essentially, the explanation of the evidentiary anomaly of lack of antimatter is traded in for an evidentiary anomaly of too much matter. That is a zero-sum trade-off.

Sakharov never questioned the symmetry of pair production because that is easily, and commonly, reproduced. My understanding is that symmetric pair production accounts for up to 99.9% of initial collision data coming out of high-energy events. The initial reason for this world-wide-web, that we now use to communicate, was to extract all of this ultra common predicable symmetric noise to be able to find that one needle-in-the-haystack. You appear to be calling into question that data, without provided any data of your own.

If I were a betting man, and I’m not, I’d wager that you are using one of those bastardized “Standard Models,” which I hope you realize is no longer the Standard Model. Sorry, but in the Standard Model that I know and love, it says: charge, parity, and time (CPT) all are conserved. To that Standard Model, both Friedmann and Sakharov assume violation. Actually to any who assume and all-matter Universe, must ultimately violate the Standard Model. Hence the need and development of bastardized versions because the results "feel" more comfortable though the paradox is simply buried, not solved—no “violation” appears to occur because the basic theorem has been mutated to meet the need of producing predetermined desired outcome of an all-matter Universe.

Conversely, compared against the original and pure version of the Standard Model, the Dominium is in 100% accordance, and no corruption is needed to reach its conclusions.

What to you say to my charge that Sakharov’s wish that the Universe be all-matter is based on committing the informal fallacy of “Composition,” i.e., basing conclusion for the composition of an entire system based on a very limited and localized samples/sampling? Subsequently, he fashioned mathematical proofs (in the spirit of Ptolemy) to reach his preconceived conclusion? I also believe that the bastardized versions of the “Standard Model” (which you appear to be quoting) were formed by similar human Ptolemaic desires to force the math to reach a preestablished consensus conclusions. Although this process is not scientific, it is a dangerous and well documented perversion of both science and logic to achieve outcomes that are deceptively alluring but ultimately hollow and false.

### #44 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

Creating

• Members
• 1561 posts

Posted 06 April 2009 - 09:46 AM

Words… lots of words; let’s see some asserted facts that are tied to actual natural observations and/or experimentation.

Look at the 1980 nobel prize work of Cronin on Kaon oscillations, as I suggested above. CP violation has been measured.

First of all, I believe that it you who are a bit confused. “CP Violation” refers to Sakharov’s suggestion of asymmetric decay…

This is actually incorrect- CP violation refers to a violation of a specific symmetry (Charge conjugation AND parity reversal).

What Sakharov did was to show that in order for a matter universe to emerge from the big bang, certain conditions needed to be satisfied. You need processes that are baryon number violating, that are CP violating, and that are C violating.

There are several facilities around the world that have tried to prove Sakharov’s assumptions (Babar, FermiLab, CERN…) but none have been able to do so beyond margins of error.

This isn't quite true- CP violation has been established beyond a doubt, the 1980 nobel prize was awarded for it! No baryon violating process has ever been established.

If I were a betting man, and I’m not, I’d wager that you are using one of those bastardized “Standard Models,” which I hope you realize is no longer the Standard Model. Sorry, but in the Standard Model that I know and love, it says: charge, parity, and time (CPT) all are conserved.

This isn't true. C, P, and T are not individually conserved. Only charge conjugation+parity+time reversal is conserved. All weak interactions in the standard model maximally violate parity (see Wu's work on the beta decay of cobalt), and there are CP violating CKM mixing processes (see Kobayashi and Maskawa's work, or there 2008 nobel speech)

### #45 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

Questioning

• Members
• 163 posts

Posted 06 April 2009 - 11:45 AM

Dear Erasmus,

You’re correct; the Nobel Prize was awarded for the suggestive work by Cronin in the ‘80s. Cool, and I’m not going to begrudge the guy for his prize or the funds given him to continue his work. But, the way you’re presenting things is that the Nobel automatically constitutes correctness and, therefore, we should all extend blind acceptance to all work done by winners of Nobels. Such hero worship of laureate is a dangerous and unscientific practice—though I’ve seen many folks faun and swoon in the presence of folks who have won Nobels. There is the very real possibility that Cronin’s work could be 100% on-base but only show one part of the overall story. For example, the apparent violations of fundamental symmetry principles in the decay of neutral K-mesons could be complemented by a yet to be observed complementary asymmetric decay favoring antimatter. If that were the case then perfect symmetry would still result. *Note: this is only a possibility, not a categorical assertion.

Actually the fervor of your post brings up a very interesting philosophical question: Did all Nobel laureates contribute equally to the advancement of science? The answer is obviously “No.” Another question comes to mind: What does the Nobel committee do on particularly slow years?…withhold the prize?…or just give it to the most potentially promising? Personally I’d hope that they give it away to someone in the hope that person can make their work bare fruit (all labs could use more resources)…but in doing so, couldn’t that inadvertently signal a seal of absolute “Nobel-correctness” on work that was still incomplete? Looking back at the records a year has never been skipped. With that evidence it begs the question: Has the Nobel committee ever given out the prize in error, to someone not truly deserving, or for some claim that that was not a justifiable advancement—or just plain wrong? A very interesting question… and one that I am not prepared to answer. However, given statistic probabilities, eventually the answer will be, “Yes.”

For the sake of this thread there is no reason to quibble over either the merits of Nobels of the past or the intricacies of the definitions of CP Violation assumptions, because both subjects are tangential/superfluous to the issues being discussed.

In post #38, I laid out a six-step way using the Dominium premise to go from the Big Bang to a Universe with galaxies that are expanding apart from each other. You interjected in post #40 and tried to stop me at the first step attempting to claim pair-production (E=mc2) is an asymmetric process. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to back up this claim. Without such evidence, your arguments against the Dominium fall apart as tangential fluff. Please get back on topic, defend your original point, and begin to discuss the deductive analysis that is this model.

### #46 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

Creating

• Members
• 1561 posts

Posted 06 April 2009 - 11:52 AM

You interjected in post #40 and tried to stop me at the first step attempting to claim pair-production (E=mc2) is an asymmetric process.

First, there is the question of pair production FROM what? Gravitons? Some inflationary field? Does your model accept an inflationary epoch and reheating?

In modern physics, all energy is carried by some particle (photons, gravitons, Ws, Zs), so pair production is a bit of a misnomer, rather we should talk of particle scattering (photons scattering into electron/positrons, or into quark/antiquarks, etc).

As I've said there are definite, measured asymmetries between matter and antimatter built into the standard model, so the real question is, why should we expect an exact symmetry?

Edit: Also, as far as nobels go, the prize is very conservative. Cronin got the prize in the 80s for work done in the 60s. The prize is given for discoveries that stand the test of time.

### #47 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

Questioning

• Members
• 163 posts

Posted 06 April 2009 - 02:51 PM

Dear Erasmus00,

You continue to evade providing evidence that pair-production is an asymmetric phenomenon. You talk of “misnomers” but you name no evidence—the only misnomer I see it what you consider to be “evidence.” Formulaic musings are not evidence, nor are they necessarily bound to nature or anything empirical. You try to switch the subject by demanding I name the source of energy that was the Big Bang’s “E” that led to the “mc2” that was to become our Universe…but you are just evading the REAL question, by trying to reframe a new one. No, it is not me who must do the explaining; it is you. You categorically asserted that pair-production is an asymmetric phenomenon. That was your reasoning behind objecting to the Dominium six-steps from Big Bang to a Universe with galaxies that is expanding. It was a very bold statement; one that requires evidence.

Pair-production is one of the most common occurrence in all high-energy labs. Tons of experiments have been conducted where pair-production conversions from some form of energy to mass have been documented. If it is such a blatantly asymmetric occurrence, as you would have us believe, then surely someone has charted the degree of predictable asymmetry. Show us such a chart; show us a link; show us some form of data confirming your pair-production asymmetry "hypothesis."

### #48 Tormod

Tormod

Hypographer

• Members
• 14353 posts

Posted 06 April 2009 - 03:21 PM

You ... you ... you

I would like to point out that there is a ping-pong tendency in this thread. It would be nice if you could all stay on topic and avoid ad hominem attacks. Look to, for example, CraidD's posts for examples on how to discuss the matter (pun intended) at hand instead of demanding responses from each other on this or that question.

Consider this a friendly hint that we have some site rules.

### #49 modest

modest

Creating

• Members
• 4959 posts

Posted 06 April 2009 - 04:44 PM

An interesting paper by Andrei Sakharov written in 1966 and published in 1967 is now often-cited as the "Sakharov conditions". These conditions (there are 3) must be met for a universe with non-zero baryon number to evolve from a baryon-symmetric state.
• Baryon number must be violated efficiently, early in the universe,
• The discrete symmetries C and CP must be violated,
• The universe must fall out of thermal equilibrium, at the precise moment when baryon number switches from being efficiently violated, to being almost exactly conserved.
All 3 are quite consistent with the standard models of particle physics and astronomy. It is therefore inconsistent to claim baryon-symmetry at some point in the universe's history (which is itself an assumption) leads necessarily to the conclusion of baryon-symmetry today. In particular, our observation of direct CP violation makes any such assumption highly irregular.

I recommend section 9 page 5 of CP Violation – An Essential Mystery in Nature’s Grand Design. A small snippet:

Actually we know more, namely that at least in our corner of the universe there are practically no primary antibaryons:

$n_{\overline{Bar}} \ll n_{Bar} \ll n_\gamma$

It is conceivable that in other neighbourhoods antimatter dominates and that the universe is formed by a patchwork quilt of matter and antimatter dominated regions with the whole being matter-antimatter symmetric. Yet it is widely held to be quite unlikely – primarily because no mechanism has been found by which a matter-antimatter symmetric universe following a big bang evolution can develop sufficiently large regions with non-vanishing baryon number. While there will be statistical fluctuations, they can be nowhere near large enough. Likewise for dynamical effects: baryon-antibaryon annihilation is by far not sufficiently effective to create pockets with the observed baryon number...

<...>

The question is: under which condition can one have a situation where the baryon number of the universe that vanishes at the initial time – which for all practical purposes is the Planck time – develops a non-zero value later on:

$\Delta n_{Bar}(t-t_{Pl} \simeq 0) = 0 \Rightarrow \Delta n_{Bar}(t = 'today') \neq 0$

One can and should actually go one step further in the task one is setting for oneself: explaining the observed baryon number as dynamically generated no matter what its initial value was!

~modest
• CraigD likes this

### #50 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

Creating

• Members
• 1561 posts

Posted 06 April 2009 - 04:55 PM

You try to switch the subject by demanding I name the source of energy that was the Big Bang’s “E” that led to the “mc2” that was to become our Universe…but you are just evading the REAL question, by trying to reframe a new one.

I'm not trying to evade your question, I'm trying to sharpen it. What do you mean by energy? In standard big bang cosmology, after inflation, all the energy is in an inflationary field. We have no direct evidence for such a field, so I cannot have empirical evidence for you.

However, lets say your mass is entirely in B mesons. The matter/antimatter asymmetry in b meson decay was measured in 2001 at BaBar. See [hep-ex/0407057] Direct CP Violating Asymmetry in B0 -> K+pi- Decays Similarly, we know Kaon oscillations have a matter/antimatter asymmetry. This has been measured.

Lets say you symmetrically pair produce bottoms, which form B mesons, which then asymmetrically decay- you end up with an imbalance even though you symmetrically pair produced.

Tons of experiments have been conducted where pair-production conversions from some form of energy to mass have been documented.

Its not actually pair production from energy- in accelerators we send in, say, electrons and positrons, and out come other particles (say, bottom, antibottom pairs).

Also, consider processes mediated by W bosons, in these, electrons and anti-neutrinos are produced. These aren't symmetric.

### #51 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

Questioning

• Members
• 163 posts

Posted 06 April 2009 - 05:26 PM

Hello again Modest,

Yes, Sakharov is the father of the current asymmetric all-matter based theories. That has already been established. That is the mainsteam theory. Please remember that this thread is to discuss the Dominium model and that this is the Alternative theories board. Please also remember that there are a number of issues that have been directly posed in our discussions that have been completely ignored.

2) Whether Einstein’s checkerboard representation of space-time is a model
3) The worth of the posted Einstein quote
4) The value of deduction in the evolution of scientific understanding
5) The value of the Ripalda paper’s convergent conclusions with the Dominium’s deductive conclusions
6) The merit of the blind prediction of an antimatter shield surrounding the galactic central black-hole and the subsequent ESA Integral news release outlining such a structure

Another issue which is currently on the table is Erasmus00’s belief that pair-production is a verifiably asymmetric event. If there is information handy supporting/contradicting that one way or another, it’d be most interesting to see.

As far as Sakharov is concerned, his theories have been tested and played with since 1967. In all that time the evidentiary anomalies have persisted. On one hand it could be argued that 42 years shows that it has stood some sort of test of time, but Ptolemy’s mathematical proofs stood for centuries before being overturned.

Also there are other questions in our conversation that are unanswered: all those posed in post 38. From the summary of ideas given

Modest said… The primary assumptions are a universe filled with homogeneous matter and follows the theory of general relativity.

However, that words were given claiming to be a single postulate. However, they are, in fact, a multilayer of assertions demanding an alarming number of assumptions, axioms, and hypotheses to support them. Consider:

1) Why did the Universe fill? What is driving the filling? Why was there space between particles. Why did that space increase. From where was it filling? An axiom or two is needed to account for this.
1b) If the matter was coming from E=mc2, where’s the antimatter? New [u/]postulates[/u] are needed to explain this.
2) Homologous? Why? What natural systems that are all the same stuff is homologous? Systems that self-assemble because of opposing characteristics ultimately appear homologous…but that works for the Dominium, not your bias-favorite explanation. Has there ever been a recorded explosion that is 100% homologous? Asymmetric would make sense…in order to get the system homologous (w/out self-assembly) … a few extra hypotheses to prop things up.
3) general relativity Doesn’t this have assumptions of its own?

Again, remember the words of the father of relativity:

“The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.”
--Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Using Einstein’s directive, compare these steps for the Dominium.

1) E=mc2 leads to equal matter and antimatter -- known fact
2) Gravitational repulsion repels matter from antimatter only hypothetical
3) Gravitational attraction between like particles causes clumping known fact
4) Self-assembly occurs in mixtures possessing opposing characteristic that are in maximum chaos known fact
5) The result of self-assemble is a organized uniform distribution of alternating domains known phenomenon
6) Such a distribution lead to expansion deductive conclusion

Honesty, I would love to continue on with our conversation, and I am all ready with move 6, but there appear to be so many unanswered questions and dangling issues that I’m not sure if I have the green-light to proceed or not. If this thread is dormant for 12 hours, I’ll figure that there really are no outstanding issues and I can continue presenting the next moves for discussion.