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
Quote:
|
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
Quote:
|
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
Quote:
|
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.)
Quote:
|
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
Quote:
|
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/alterna...asanuddin.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?
