Science Forums 2

[Hasanuddin]

Move 12:

Implied premise: Antimatter is the mirror twin to matter

**Therefore: All functions that are possible within matter-based systems, will also be possible within antimatter-based systems.

Given truth: Light (photons) is the antiparticle of itself.

**Therefore: Light emanating from an antimatter source would be indistinguishable from that arriving from a matter-based source.

Implicitly, both of these premises were already used in Move 10: the uniform spread of photonic data of the CMB was a result of photons produced from the coupling of electrons w/ protons AND positrons w/ antiprotons. All across the Universe these two types of material reached the magic temperature of 3000°K at roughly the same time because the manner that both forms of material were deposited on the expanding space-time were mirror operations of each other. If it is true that the properties of both are mirrors of the other, conditions necessary for dynamics (such as coupling) would be identical. The resulting speed, wavelength, and frequency of the photon resulting from either for of coupling would also be identical and therefore indistinguishable from each other. Hence these conclusions predict a match to what is physically observed: the CMB field appearing seamlessly uniform even though it is the result of dynamics occurring in both areas of matter vs. areas of antimatter.

If there were a difference in the behavior of antimatter-based systems, then that difference would have shown up in the CMB data as a quilting/patchwork within the data between purged matter vs. purged antimatter. However, because there is no such quilting pattern (and assuming Moves 1-10 are sound) then support is given in favor of the notion that antimatter based systems function identically to matter based ones. In other words, it is a known fact that for protons to couple with electrons, conditions need to be below 3000ºK. According to the new premise, the same would hold true for antiprotons coupling with positrons. Also, the type of photon released (frequency/energy) would be exactly the same in either case. Hence the CMB appears to be uniform, even though part of it was the result of matter couplings and the other part from antimatter couplings.

From the preceding discussions comes a testable aspect of the new Dominium model. Although attempts to produce and record the spectral signature of antihydrogen have resulted in failure, antihydrogen has been successfully produced in the lab. Given that the formation of antihydrogen is a coupling that will produce a single high-energy photon, such a photon could be measured (if it hasn’t already been done… which I am guessing it has.) Anyway, the “hard” part would be to recreate analogous conditions to allow a proton couple with an electron under similar and comparible conditions. The Dominium model asserts that the resulting photon would be the mirror twin, and therefore indistinguishable, compared to the photon byproduct of the creation of antihydrogen. This particular test would be far easier to conduct than spectral analysis because it involves comparing phenomena that are both known and reproducible; the trick will be to make the formations of hydrogen and antihydrogen similarly so that the measured photons can be considered comparable. Reasoning: we already know that the creation of antihydrogen is possible and we would expect a photon to be the result of such a coupling. The Dominium model predicts that the photon produced would be identical to that produced by a similar coupling of forming standard hydrogen. Popular-bias theories based on notions of asymmetry between matter and antimatter would be supported if the results of such a test were anything but identical.