Jump to content
Science Forums

Digesting the Galactic Big MAC

Recommended Posts

A massive antimatter cloud (MAC) has been mapped by the ESA/NASA satellite Integral. The mission shows that MAC completely encapsulates the central black-hole at our galaxy’s center.


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

NASA - Vast Cloud of Antimatter Traced to Binary Stars


The existence of the MAC formation is completely contradictory to traditional rote. We are lead to believe, by consensus theories that all the Universe’s antimatter disappeared during the first seconds of after creation. MAC’s existence, stability, and continuance all appear in direct contradiction to the assumption that antimatter is necessarily short-lived or more prone to spontaneous decay. Even more perplexing is that MAC has persisted in the matter-densest portion of the galaxy.


The existence of MAC was a crucial centerpiece predicted, before the release of the ESA/NASA Integral data, by the modern Dominium model being debated at hear on hypography at http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/18910-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin.html You’re invited to come over and join that pivotal dialog.


Now the question is, using preexisting theory, please explain away the apparent paradoxes to give reason, purpose, and clarity to the MAC structure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We are lead to believe, by consensus theories that all the Universe’s antimatter disappeared during the first seconds of after creation.


By whom? Where? Sources?


AFAIK the theory goes that there was *slightly* more matter than antimatter, and when the particales annihilated we were left with mostly "normal" matter. But I was not aware of claims that antimatter "disappeared".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tormod,


The lead to this thread was written in terms of the consensus view, biases, and popular opinion—not the language used by w/in journals. What I mean is that what people believe versus what they publish are often two different things. I am not avoiding the legitimate call to divulge sources for an assertion, like the one forwarded. Rather, because I am referring to the psychology of the scientific community the source is not Arxiv, but it is to be found within the educational press statements and news stories that our their scientific reporting to the words of a few “experts.”


Truly, the best place to see consensus opinion is to look into the news releases being aired. It is in these official releases that the consensus biases become most pronounced. Why? Because when a scientist is interviewed for a soon to be published news story he/she needn’t be concerned about hedging possibility, degrees of doubt, or peer-review embarrassment. The reporter is going to write-down, often verbatim, whatever is said re scientific specifics. Therefore, the person being interviewed is more likely not to hedge and just give their beliefs. News releases are a perfect spot to monitor the psyche of the scientific community because all scientific news releases are worded/penned/cited by perceived experts in the field. Reporters never try to fill in theoretical nuances, rather it is asked of the “experts” to crystallize scientific facts/opinions down for the layperson to digest. Also, the assertion you question pertains to “what we are lead to believe” … and in modern society, that occurs through the media.


I spent an hour and found a large number of recent news stories that recite the same traditional rote.


Theory according to CERN (notice in each of these quotes, the existence of the MAC structure is not even listed as a possibility.)

From CERN - Antimatter detectives comes this opening statement summary of scientific understanding

The antimatter is missing – not from CERN, but from the Universe! At least that is what we can deduce so far from careful examination of the evidence.


From CERN - Spotlight: Angels and Demons comes this summary of current theory

But as far as we can see (billions of light years), the universe is entirely made of normal matter, and antimatter has to be painstakingly created.


From CERN - Science Grand Format comes another opening summary

LHCb will seek to understand why our Universe seems to be composed entirely of matter and not antimatter.


Theory elsewhere from the web

From IndiaDaily - Missing antimatter at the time of big bang formed the small windows (fermions) connecting our 3-D physical universe to the 5-D Hyperspace comes the most accurate synopsis (though it still could be read like the other four.)

As a matter of fact, shortly after the big bang, most of the matter and antimatter did annihilate, but one in a billion particles survived and that became the galaxies, the universe, and us as we know it now. Still why even one in billion particles survived if there were equal matter and antimatter?


From Taiwanese physicists help reveal clues to missing antimatter - The China Post comes this summary

Particle physicists believe that equal amounts of matter and antimatter were produced after the Big Bang. However, only matter survived in the end, while antimatter was destroyed.


It seems from all of these very recent articles that the consensus opinion is that antimatter is virtually nonexistent in our visible Universe and that all of it, exactly half of all of the Big Bang creation, had vanished by the time of CMB. That has been the consensus view for a very long time.


Only within the last two years, when I began advancing the Dominium model forward, has any real conversation regarding the possibility that some/most of the antimatter still persists, yet not in this corner of the Universe. Seriously, in the last two months I have come across an exponential increase in the number of blogs and forums discussing the possibility that entire antimatter galaxies are wedged in side-by-side with our own. Because of gravitational repulsion stasis is achieve and it becomes impossible for material between the galaxies to been exchanged. Not only that, but also other components of the Dominium model are surfacing on foreign blogs, articles, and tweets. Although I have yet to see the Dominium cited by name, I am pleased to see that conversation is shifting and that people are allowing themselves to consider the logic behind the Dominium. (PS, To readers who aren’t aware, but the hypography forum for the new model is at http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/18910-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin.html)


But back to MAC, the Dominium gives a simple explanation for the necessity of this structure; so far, I have no inkling of a possible explanation under traditional theory. Does anyone reading?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Because of gravitational repulsion stasis is achieve and it becomes impossible for material between the galaxies to been exchanged.


Have you been able to define a mechanism that could account for the existence of a gravitational repulsive force or potential.


I believe the space-time geometry of the general theory relativity which is used to define the gravitational potential of particle does not and cannot support the existence of a negative gravitational potential you have assoicated with an antiparticle. Therefore, if the scientists at CERN do find that anti matter particles fall up because they posse a negative gravitational potential we would be required to not only to rethink the relationship between matter and antimatter but completely revamp our understanding of the mechanism responsible for gravitational forces and the geometry of the universe.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff,


Mechanism? Do you mean the sub-subatomic driver that causes the manifestation of gravity? No… the Dominium analysis is silent for this area; there are still some mysteries left to solve. On the subject of drivers for other fundamental forces, aren’t they also unknown? Consider electrostatics, we know that protons and positron “are” positive-typed; and we know antiprotons and electrons “are” negative-typed; but as far as I have read there is no idea how, or why, this is so (in terms of subatomic mechanisms.)


The applecart You are very correct when you assert that if the Dominium prevails then many aspects of traditional rote of assumptions that are necessarily flawed. I agree. Let it be noted, that none of the negated areas have yet been substantiated with any conclusive physical evidentiary support.


I wholeheartedly agree with the insight of the consequence to the scientific community if the Dominium premise is correct:

Originally posted by Jeffocal to not only to rethink the relationship between matter and antimatter but completely revamp our understanding (of other areas of scientific thought.)
I parsed your words in the above quote because there are many more areas within the traditional rote of assumptions that would need to be reworked. You just mentioned a tip of what would need to be reconciled. The Dominium model would solve approximately 10 outstanding paradoxes that currently exist between the actual physical record and theories resulting from traditional assumptions. With each paradox that is solved, the Dominium negates—often-beloved—theories that had stood for decades.


That said, the Dominium model need not conflict with all models that touch on related areas of inquiry. For example, there is an ongoing discussion (posts 98-104) on the thread, http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/18910-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin-11.html, concerning the process of neucleogenesis (creation of baryons) as viewed by the Dominium and as viewed by the RAD-model. To date, I do not see any true conflicts between the two models. That is not to say that they are necessarily both correct. Rather, this is just an observation that the Dominium is not an exercise in being contrary. Nothing could be further off base, the Dominium (and apparently the RAD-model) are in tight adherence to all aspects of observed/recorded astronomic/experimental data. Because they both align with what is physically observed, therefore they necessarily align with each other.


Because many distinct anomalous dilemmas are solved by the Dominium, so too once standing assumptions will need to be reworked. For each distinct dilemma, there will be one or more distinct incorrect assumptions. Paradoxes/puzzles solved include the “missing antimatter,” the nature of dark-matter, the driver of the solar wind, the flat event horizon, the ever-accelerating Hubble-expansion, galaxy formation, uniform mass distribution, nature of CMB, heliospheric dynamics, and the topic of this thread…the MAC formation at the galaxy center. With each puzzle solved (assuming it was “correctly” solved), the previous faulty explanation must be abandoned. What’s wrong with that? So what if it pulls the rug out from under quite a few people. Cool. This would not be the first time that the rules for looking at scientific data were markedly improved/changed in one swipe.


If the Dominium model is correct, and if this lens change does negate many previous believed, yet unverified, theory; then research and discovery should catapult forward. Revamping the scientific machine is not a bad thing. I believe the truth of the impact of a revamping is quite the opposite. Look back to other points in scientific history when a lens change caused perceptions to change. In every case they were followed by an era of huge advancements. Therefore, if the Dominium is correct, those labs and individuals who are nimble and savvy enough to ride this wave of change early can be launched to distinction while the sociopolitical landscape is in upheaval. The big losers will be the ones who resist a rightful change, for they will be left in the dust.


My biggest hopes for future advancement rest on the creation and manipulation of AMBH. According to the Dominium model, mini and micro black-hole material will be stable. There are a few who believe that LHC might be able to synthesize black-hole material. If this possibility is correct then there is a huge potential possibility of retooling LHC to accelerate antiprotons, and therefore, potentially create AMBH. (Then there's always the ominous possibility that black-holes are stable and LHC generates a stable matter-compacting black-hole.) But these concerns are tangential to this thread and should be made at http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/18910-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin.html


Let's chomp through that Big MAC, shall we?

Although the Dominium model would cause the traditional applecart to turn over, that wobbly cart is still riding on. Therefore, we must still refer to it in order to help explain natural phenomena. MAC is a nature, physical, and central structure in our galaxy. Why isn't there any tool in the cart to explain it... even a vague explanation would be nice. Yes, NASA made a casual causal linkage between binary systems and the MAC structure. The problem is that nowhere does either NASA or ESA given even a partial explanation how binary systems might produce the MAC antimatter. Rather, this is a slight shift in one of the most classic of all informal fallacies. Instead of drawing conclusions Post hoc ergo propter hoc we are now drawing conclusions via Prope hoc ergo propter hoc—basing a causal relationship based on proximal relationships. Therefore, I would like someone to explain MAC using traditional theory and assumption.


Let us focus on the quandary of the MAC formation at the center of the galaxy. Can anyone share an apple of traditional wisdom that would explain the existence, persistence, and residence of the MAC structure in the mass-densest portion of our galaxy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

This gives a (slightly) more conventional view, involving annihilating positrons produced from primordial black hole Hawking radiation, these would aniilhilate with the electrons in the radiation.

Milky Way's antimatter linked to exotic black holes - space - 22 January 2008 - New Scientist


Some discussion is here of failures of direct primordial black hole radiation detection-

Fermi: FAQ - "Mini" Black Hole Detection

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

Dear Eric,


I apologize for my tardy reply. I have been diverted as of late. No, nothing to do with science, quite the contrary actually. Metaphysics and spirituality would be the best way to categorize it. One tangible project that has borne fruit is the official commencement of Boston’s first MSA (Moslem Student Assn) at a public school. Let’s just say that the need was definitely unmet. Currently there are thirty student members who are eager raising money to aide Haiti and making poetry and video to practice intramural scholastic competitions. Please accept my apologies; I didn’t even glance at any of these pages for over six months.


These conversations are important. We are discussing the very edges of known understanding. The area where the pieces are still coming in and those that we do have don’t fit together as neatly as we’d like them to. There are still too many vexing paradoxes. I personally believe that it is a duty for all humans to explore and question the natural world, in which we only ephemerally exist. Fame, ego, and money actually mean nothing towards the question of whether or not you've lived a Good life. We are all going to die at some point, and then our names a specific contributions become forgotten. And our Earth... compared to the Universe as a whole is so insignificant it's hardly worth mentioning. Herein lays a paradox of sorts: if we are each infinitely infinitesimal within the Universe, why should any of us work hard to do anything?? Within this paradox, I find strength and inspiration. We are all most insignificant than microbes in this universe of ours. But we try hard, not despite this fleeting and finite status of the moment exist, but because of it.


Any way, to your statement (which I totally disagree with.)

This gives a (slightly) more conventional view' date=' involving annihilating positrons produced from primordial black hole Hawking radiation, these would aniilhilate with the electrons in the radiation.[/quote']

Following your presentation you link to a NewScientist article on a theory for “the creation of a source to account for observe antimatter that has been measured and which is being referred to as MAC on this thread.


I strongly take issue with your claim that the view of this article is in any way conventional. Consider what the basis of their views:

Legions of tiny black holes created during the big bang may lurk at the centre of the galaxy, creating a prodigious antimatter factory

Milky Way's antimatter linked to exotic black holes - space - 22 January 2008 - New Scientist

I am in agreement with Mr Clark on the first assertion, tiny black-holes created during the Big Bang probably did occur. The second half of the logic falls apart: why would tiny black-holes become antimatter factories? No observed black-hole has been seen to be a “factory” of anything. True, jets have been recorded when black-hole ingest mass-quantities, but the net flow of material is inward. Also, to my knowledge there is no mathematic fundamental that predicts a polar switch from observed black-holes that consume, to not-yet recorded tiny black-holes that are net producers of antimatter—of all things? Wouldn’t the favoring of the production of antimatter violate known fundamental observed principles, e.g., ubiquitous pair-production events recorded “nearly” countless times? Wouldn’t the favored production of antimatter violate the conventional assumption used as a basis for the all-matter Universe????


Also missing from this article is a complete dodge on the question, why does MAC persist? How can MAC persist in the most mass-dense quadrants of the known galaxy??? This “theory” not only goes against conventional doctrine it also does not fit into known observable trends. Worse, applies a façade over acknowledging all the paradoxes surrounding the MAC structure.


Hey, since my seven month hiatus began, some recent advances have been made. As one might expect, some of these new advanced insights enter areas where a model, such as the Dominium, would necessarily be impacted. Surprise-surprise, two very conclusive sets of data point to new evidence categorically in support of the Dominium model. Ironically one of the strongest pieces of evidence came from LHC herself. The first widely published release of LHC data tells of "surprising" levels of luminosity, i.e., rates of collision significantly higher than all reknowned theorists had projected. However, this exact occurrence was predicted on discussions threads, such as this, more than a year ago and well before LHC was ever successfully run! The other grandslam comes from the Voyager Mission, one of the longest and most fruitful missions that NASA has ever accomplished.


Check out the other thread where that’s all coming together... very cool developments in favor for the merit of the Dominium model itself.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...