Science Forums 2

[modest]

Thank you for the kind response, Hasanuddin.

You say on the link you provided to your site that “Times are changing and internet discussion boards like this can potentially provided a much more transparent vetting than the old-school closed-door method.” While I think this has some fairly obvious drawbacks, I’d also like to think it can be a valid approach. But, in order for it to work I think a couple things are necessary.

First: People critiquing your idea would need to give honest and knowledgeable feedback which would include looking at your idea on its merits rather than trying to debate your idea as a means of supporting standard theory. Second: You would need to be receptive to feedback. Valid objections raised to your idea would have to be seen as possible problems or shortcomings of your idea and would need to be addressed from that standpoint. Any and all negative feedback can’t be dismissed as current scientific dogma protecting itself.

The first criticism I would have is that your model does not appear to be a "model". I understand your postulates:

• the gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter is repulsive
• the universe has equal amounts of matter and antimatter

But, I don't see the laws of physics being used to model the outcome of those postulates. To give you a specific example of where and how this can be done, you say:

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

Using atomic/nano self-assemblage as a predictive model on would expect a type of patterned positioning similar to that, which has been produced in the lab. One such configuration involves alternate positioning as is seen in ionic crystals. Such a configuration necessitates a system that has a huge degree of order in terms of the distribution, size, and positioning or its components. Therefore, when applied to the developing Universe...

This is a good analogy and I would think a good place to start a model. An ionic solid such as salt has an energy of crystallization which you can find modeled at the following site under Lattice Energy toward the bottom:

The energy of crystallization (negative of the lattice energy) in ionic solids is mostly electrostatic energy, arising simply out of the Coulombic attractions and repulsions among all the positive and negatively charged ions in the solid piece, as per the Coulomb's law for electrostatic potential energy uij = qiqj/(4peorij) among any two ions i & j considered as point charges.

Solids and Ionic Solids

It goes on to give all formulas necessary to calculate the electrostatic interactions of a crystal made of positive and negative ions. If those coulomb forces are instead taken to be positive and negative forces of Newtonian gravity then the Madelung energy equation given in the link above can be made (naively) into a cosmological energy equation.

This is done in this paper which I posted the link to yesterday:

If we now visualize each positive ion as a cluster of matter galaxies, and each negative ion as an antimatter cluster, and replace the electrostatic interaction by the (anti)gravitational potential due to a point mass in the newtonian limit, we obtain from the Madelung model of an ionic solid:



where Ug is the total gravitational energy, N is the total number of clusters, m would represent the mass of the clusters, R the separation between nearest neighbors, and α is the Madelung constant. For simplicity, and to keep the analogy with a crystal, m and R are assumed to be the same for all clusters. The Madelung constant takes values between 1.8 and 1.6 for most crystal structures. The overall force on the universe (dUg/dR) is repulsive. Such a model of the universe could not be static, the effective values of R, m, and α being a function of time.

Space-time reversal, antimatter, and antigravity in general relativity

This represents the first steps toward building a model. It becomes possible to use measured parameters (such as the mass density of the universe or the number of galaxy clusters) and put them in the model and make predictions about how the universe evolves over time. A good example of this is the concordance model of standard cosmology. It is based on known laws of physics (general relativity); it gives a numerical solution to model; and it makes predictions about the past and future of the universe. It "models" the universe.

I think what you're doing with the Dominium model is very thought-provoking and a great idea, but I don't think it's a model yet which I think it needs to be in order to convince people of the two postulates listed above. I say this because there is no direct evidence for either postulate. There has been no observation that matter gravitationally repels antimatter. There's also no experimental or observational evidence that there are any significant concentrations of antimatter in the observable universe. Convincing people of these will therefore require quantitative predictions that can be tested and confirmed.

I hope you don't take this as a completely negative assessment. I rather mean it as a recommendation on how to proceed with your ideas (which I think are fundamentally good ideas).

As to the specifics of your conclusions, I would enjoy discussing many things that you've brought up... I'll pick out one thing in particular to get the ball rolling...

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

inally, one of the implications deep w/in the Dominium model is that before the first light of CMB, micro black-holes (MBH) were created inside of embryonic galaxies of an opposite type the the galaxy itself. So, for the Milky Way, the type of MBH produced would have been antimatter-based (AMBH). Because of asymmetric geometries most of the AMBH from our galaxy would have been purged, as would have been the case for MMBH produced in mirror galaxies based on antimatter. However, both types of material would have been purged at a time after considerable expansion had already taken place. Both types, the model asserts, are still on-route to the nearest like-type galaxy, which means that today they are all located somewhere between galaxies. This perfectly matches the gravitational readings of what has been referred to as "dark matter."

Am I to understand that the black hole at our galaxy's core is made of antimatter? Why and how would this be possible?

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

-source

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

~modest

PS... Please understand when replying, I'm not out to get you or your model nor prove you or it wrong and I hope you don't take this and subsequent posts in that way. I'd very much like to explore the logical consequences of your ideas without any bias