The Dominium model by Hasanuddin

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Eric,

I looked at the paper you mentioned, [0711.2256] Correlation of the highest energy cosmic rays with nearby extragalactic objects To me, it seems to present more questions than it answers. I’ll have to read a little closer to see their methodology, but it appears that the papers conclusion is that the origin of highest cosmic rays energy cosmic rays is from between galaxies and that their arrival is not isotropic. Both of these conclusions go against best understandings (though that means only a little.) Facts are facts, the real question is are these truly reliable “facts.”

The middle of your post I don’t agree with. I’m not a big fan of arguments based on dark-energy, or other overly complex mechanisms to occur. Nor do I understand how the large number seemingly unrelated concepts pertain to this thread. Perhaps I missed something.

The end of your post was interesting, though again I respectfully disagree. The logical conclusion is that antimatter attracts light. You see, photons are the antiparticles of themselves. Therefore, a photon has as much in common with a proton as it does with an antiproton. If the proton attracts it, therefore so too should it be towards an antiproton.

Now, that said, you were wise to look for symmetry. I believe symmetry in this situation might be found examining the dynamics of light toward charge. I don’t know if an experiment to study the effects of charge on the path of light has ever been committed. I believe that it is very possible that ultra high point charges could cause light to deflect. If this is true, then it would complete the symmetric set of relationships between matter and antimatter and also between gravitational and electrostatic systems.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Rade,

1: Which part of the dark-matter reading is accounted for by Dominium & which by the RAD-model
As I mentioned originally this is not an area I wish to argue at this point. Both the Dominium and the RAD-model appear to have two valid claims for the influences that caused both the readings of “dark-matter” and the necessity of the “dark-energy” djinni construct. As mentioned, in the decades to come, there will be plenty of time for all to quibble over the exact partitioning.

For us here and now, the goal is to kill the djinni. Expose the construct for what it is: an unverified, extremely-complex, extremely hard to pin-down, and never-before measured “thing” that acts like nothing else in nature, but that conveniently solves all the problems of the particle-physics legacy assumptions. It is on par with the ancient notion of spontaneous generation of muck to eels (because naturalist couldn't detect baby eels because eels migrated across the Atlantic to the Sargasso Sea.) Actually, the dark-energy djinni is worse than the notion of spontaneous generation because it has more "moving parts."

2: Immiscibility and going from monochromatic quark-cluster set (qcs) to conjoined duo baryons.
I understand that the RAD-model does not weigh in on this topic, the Dominium does. This is why I say that it is currently an unanswerable question. This is a question that would possess degrees of answer, depending on the degrees of starting conditions. Under low-energy conditions (like on Earth) the answer mat very well be that immiscibility prevails. Conversely, under higher energy conditions, the possibility becomes a reality. Knowing the cut-off point is impossible for either of us. Acknowledging that there could be a cut-off is just a note to a future experimenter who might get funding to examine that question.

With regard to the question, "Would collision lead to total annihilation or is it possible for partial annihilation + baryon to occur?"
You appear to have forgotten to mention “annihilation. To the outcome of the collision of matter with antimatter, you only give two possible scenarios, either baryon formation or superposition. How can you leave annihilation out of your list?

Reading on what exactly are you calling superposition?… could not all this just be thought of as a ring/barbell conjoined duos? Seriously, that geometry leads to an almost superimposed type of configuration… but “knot” quite.

Then, I read an interesting definition of a condition of the system,

in our measurements we call the "sea quarks"

Hmm, I think to myself. I can see a “sea of quarks” during Big Bang evolution but not at the moment of collision, but in the initial moments of the Big Bang. But that’s not what you're talking about. {For what its worth, I really don’t like made-up definitions that detract from what is being described.}
Question: if it’s “hidden matter-antimatter superimposed” why invoke the ocean?

But back again, my biggest issue with this section is that you don’t mention how/if annihilation fits into collision.

4 Whether the limits or the point of max stability is currently of max importance
At this point in time, the RAD-model is still on the drawing board (or more correctly, on the whipping post blog-stage. Cool, so is my model.) The goal is to first show that your model matches with truths that we all know to be true. That is the initial litmus test of any new scientific model.

Therefore the goal is to figure out what form(s) possess the highest degrees of stability because those would be the ones that would persist for billions of millennia. I think I can weigh in. For example:

Would a 9-qcs be more of less stable than a 12-qcs?
Ventured answer: the 9-qcs could form a triangle or line. The triangle is most stable of geometric figure. While the 12-qcs could from a quadrilateral, which although relatively stable, compared to the triangle is not at all.

Similarly, a pairing would expect to have a degree of stability, but again, would lose against the triangle.

When I say “lose” I’m talking about in a high impact collision. All of these particles will be bombarding each other. Therefore, they’ll each break to form more stable particles or merge to form more stable particles. Hence after millennia only the most stable particles will remain. Therefore structural 3-D integrity and stability would be key. The match is so perfect for the ring/barbell conjoined dichotomy.

But truly, the most stable of them all would be the ring/barbell knot. Because there is two opposing teams of forces counterbalanced against each other, the net external force/stress would be zero. Neither ring nor barbell can win the battle, though the forces within are extremely strong primary forces of an unresolved battle to each primary gravitational stability. This stable 5-qsc baryon would have a net value of 1-qsc because of the masked duality of 80% of its structure.

The Dominium model points to the conclusion that the primary driver of a system at absolute chaos (〜100% heterogeneity of matter/antimatter, charge, etc) is gravity. The manifestation of this achieved stability is the self-sorting of matter from antimatter. This would start as soon as the baryon-knots were being formally tied.

Ya know, I really like this RAD-model of yours because it seems to adhere to the Guth hypothesis of “imperfections” in the heterogeneity. That’s why I used the “〜” symbol. In other words, at the Big Bang equal parts were randomly produce, but within that randomness there were fluctuations of concentration. With the RAD-model 40% of all baryons is made of its gravitational-opposites. That 40% is assimilated, not annihilated, in baryogenesis. Cool, that gives the job of self-assembly a boast, 40% of the sort is done by tying the knot.

Perhaps the Dominium assertion that self-assembly is the first thing to occur to achieve primary gravitational stability, is slightly incorrect. If RAD-model is correct then there is something that takes precedent to that event: tying the baryon knot.

One thing that just occurred to me that must be elementary for you, but I bet your RAD-model give an explanation for γ-gamma decay? That one always pissed me off. The same isotope ⇒ the same isotope plus a γ-photon. Huh? Oh ya, there’s a change in mass… huh? I also have never been satisfied by an explanation of this phenomenon. Do you mind starting there? Is there a form of Lithium-6 that goes through gamma decay? The book in front of me says no, but maybe you know of studies that do show this. Also the book says that it has an atomic mass of 6.015121 … is that still correct (it’s 10 yrs-old)? If Li-6 does have a form that goes through gamma-decay, then please start with an isotope that does. Sorry to be a putz, we can put the creation of the Universe on hold for a little while. Gamma-decay has bugged me for a long long time. I would be absolutely delighted if you could make sense of it for me.

I like the way you summed up the synergies between the two models

RAB-Model deals with "structure", Dominion Model deals with 'function". The dialectic of the two provides understanding of baryons and quarks in a new physics manner that differs from the Standard Model.

Perhaps? Or perhaps we are just kidding ourselves. But, I don’t think so, I’ve combed the Dominium many times and have yet to find a single flaw either within the logic or within the categorical scientific premises used.

I must say, there are many admirable things about your RAD-model. Too bad I am just one man.
Whether our models ever get traction remains to be seen. It is truly up to the silent readership. Only if “enough” people within the scientific community know about these two models can they ever break through. Therefore, you need to make your RAD model more assessable.


I should probably tell all a little about myself. I know about the importance of getting the massage out about a novel item, such as our two maverick models. That’s why the book; that’s why the forums; that’s why everything. The one thing I haven’t done is formally publish Dominium papers within a journal. Oddly, I copyrighted everything in 2007 long before the book or articles were near printing. Actually, I have three paper written journal style and semi-ready to go at this site: The Dominium I’m strangely terrified of the process and haven’t even attempted to contact anyone about publishing them. Why? Because I work in a high school. I am your typical Gen-X “underachiever,” actually the truth is there were no opportunities for my generation. Even though I graduated in the top 10% of my class, the recession of the 1990’s meant no job. None of my friends got jobs. I was one step away from standing in the bread-line that formed every Sunday at the Lutheran book-store. Long strong short, out of desperation I applied for p/t work at the schools, and ultimately found that I was very good at it and that it got near absolute contentment. Having the summers free meant that I had three months to take educational sabbaticals, enroll in classes, and do formal research in any of the local universities. UMASS Boston had the most convenient library for me to do my research for the Dominium. CERN, nine years ago, is where I learned and worked all summer in the HST program. NASA (space-camp) is where I learned additional aspects of cosmology. And then in 2007 was an MIT symposium that introduced me to self-assembly from a nanotechnology lecturer. This is also the time that the Dominium was first being written. I love science. Back in grade-school kids used to tease me dubbing me “nature boy” because I have always been so fascinated about every single aspect of science. Actually, the moniker never really bothered me, I could never understand how those same classmates could be so obtuse when it came to the natural beauty that is essentially everywhere. So basically, I’m just a humble man who loves all the sciences. I live in, of all places, Dot Mass (Dot is the locals name for Dorchester; Mass is the short version of Massachusetts.) I don’t know how to publish these papers. I do not know procedures. I do not know who to call or talk to. What I do know is that the Dominium model is damn near perfect. If anyone does know something about journal publishing—the summer starts next Friday—please write me a private-message on this board.

ps Rade: check you mailbox on this board

[Eric]

Hasanuddin
I recognise the point about a photon reacting to a proton as it would to an antiproton.

My difficulty is the issue of why the photon is attracted gravitationally in the same way as (non antimatter) matter is. By applying the idea of the photon as an antiparticle of its itself to this, it seems to leave a puzzle to me as to why the photon should follow the matter pattern for attraction to matter - as opposed to a repulsion or perhaps more predictably - non deflection pattern

Of course the last doesn't apply in practice. I'm not really that clear that anti particle of itself is the right sort of way to look at a photon, I would have maybe non-matter (as implied by zero mass) and energy transmission through liquid-like ether particles that make up space. This is what Christian Huygens argued.

The question of light in reaction to charge is very interesting. This may even be an untried area of research. One might assume neutrality has been found. But having a cheap laser beam and having purchased a 9V battery and table salt; I'm going to see if any slight deflection can be seen from the other end of the flat, esp with a magnifying glass. Any deflection may still not be detectable though. If your saying any sort of charge to light deflection effect would be relevant to light re. gravity and antimatter - I would agree. But if it were true - and has not been researched before - that would open up a whole new area of itself.

I'm aware of the hazard of laser light.

[Rade]

Hasanuddin,

You asked a few questions and made a few comments. Here are some answers I have:

1-Comment:
...Would a 9-qcs be more of less stable than a 12-qcs? Ventured answer: the 9-qcs could form a triangle or line. The triangle is most stable of geometric figure. While the 12-qcs could from a quadrilateral, which although relatively stable, compared to the triangle is not at all.

1-Answer: There is more to isotope stability that just the geometry of the close packing of quarks within nuclear shells. So, for example, the 9-qcs isotope (2-Helium-3) is not more stable than the 12-qcs isotope 2-Helium-4, it takes much more energy to pull apart 2-Helium-4 than 2-Helium-3. The first nuclear shell can support a maximum of 12 quarks and thus its energy level becomes closed to any additional energy and very stable when 12 quarks are present. Additional quark bags must move to the next higher quantum energy shell. Recall from before, the RAB-Model predicts that independent quarks do not exist, they must always be a bags of 2 (mesons) or 3 (baryons).

2-Comment:

One thing that just occurred to me that must be elementary for you, but I bet your RAD-model give an explanation for γ-gamma decay? .... Do you mind starting there? Is there a form of Lithium-6 that goes through gamma decay? The book in front of me says no, but maybe you know of studies that do show this

2-Answer:
The RAB-Model does not address gamma decay since there is no change in nucleons. This is nothing more than an isotope moving from a higher quantum energy level to a lower energy level, and in the process a photon of energy is released. 3-Lithium-6 is a stable isotope, it does not naturally undergo gamma decay.

However, in 2006, there was experimental confirmation that in rare events, the beta decay (B-) of the neutron [N] does show a photon being released.
See this link:
http://www.physorg.com/news85849208.html. Because some of the unstable isotopes of Lithium undergo beta-decay, then it may be possible that in rare situations a photon could be released during beta-decay for some of these Lithium isotopes--but I am not aware of any literature to suggest so (but this means next to nothing since I do not study this topic).
I have no idea how this might relate to your Dominium (sorry for previous misspellings) Model ? Perhaps you could discuss ?

===

RAB-Model Predictions for Quark Structure for Stable Isotope 3-Lithium-6

Let me now introduce some RAB-Model predictions for 3-Lithium-6 and you can tell me how it is either in agreement with, or in conflict with, the Dominium Model.

There are 3 protons [P] and 3 neutrons [N] placed within the first two energy shells. The Standard Model predicts that 4 are within the first shell and 2 within the second shell. The first nuclear energy shell is symbolically called the 1s level, the second is called the 1p. 3-Lithium-6 is also known to be stable to both beta and alpha decay.

Now, I am going to work first at the macroscopic level of the nucleon, rather than the quark-bag level--because it is much easier to visualize. Then we can discuss quark-bag level.

Let me give a diagram of the 1s and 1p energy levels with the nucleons included for 3-Lithium-6 as explained by the current Standard Model:

==
1s PP NN ....maximum allowed = 4
1p P N ....maximum allowed = 12
==
Note above there are two energy 'wells' for each energy shell, one that fills with protons [P] and one that fills with neutrons [N].

And now, here is the RAB-Model prediction for shell structure for 3-Lithium-6 (from a 1995 manuscript)

Probability Cluster Structure #1.

===
1s {[NP] + [NP]} , a single rotating entity {} of two [NP] clusters, in the core = 1s shell
1p {[NP]} , a single rotating cluster moving around the core, in the 1P shell
===

Thus, see that the stability of 3-Lithium-6 is predicted to be the product of 3 stable [NP] structures that interact---consider your argument of the 'stable triangle'. So, while there are quantum mechanic explanations for the stability of 3-Lithium-6 in the first diagram above from the Standard Model, the RAB-Model offers a valid alternative explanation.

Now, any model is only as good as experiment shows that its predictions are possible. In 2001, S. Nakayama et al. published a paper titled Cluster Excitations in 6-Li (in Proc. of International Symposium of Cluster Aspects of Quantum Many-body Systems, A. Ohnishi et al., editors). In this paper they present experimental evidence that the ground energy state of 3-Li-6 is known to have two different types of stable cluster structures: (1) {alpha + deuterium} and (2) {tritium + Helium-3}. They also found that they were able to cause individual clusters to "spin" or show resonance while the other cluster(s) remain as "spectators" and did not spin.

So, we find complete agreement with the experimental observations and the RAB-Model prediction for the Probability Cluster Structure #1, the alpha = {[NP] + [ NP]} and the deuterium = {[NP]}.

The Standard Model may well predict the first structure experimentally observed since the 1s shell is complete, but I do not think it explains the second since the Standard Model requires that the first shell (1s) be complete before filling the second (1p) with three additional nucleons. So, I do not see how the Standard Model would predict a resonating two cluster structure of [PNP] + [NPN], the first in 1s shell, the second in 1p shell, for 3-Li-6, but perhaps I error and would appreciate education on the topic.

Now, the RAB-Model also predicts many other cluster probabilities for 3-Li-6, including both matter and antimatter, and here they are:

Number of [NP], [NPN], [PNP] Clusters
=============
9 (matter), -2 (antimatter), -2 (antimatter) = 3-Li-6
6 (matter), -1 (antimatter), -1 (antimatter) = 3-Li-6
3 (matter), 0 (matter), 0 (matter) = 3-Li-6
0 (matter), 1 (matter), 1 (matter) = 3-Li-6
-6 (antimatter), 1 (matter), 1 (matter) = 3-Li-6
-9 (antimatter), 2 (matter), 2 (matter) = 3-Li-6
=============

The cluster probabilities in red color, first suggested in 1995 by the RAB-Model inventor, are exactly as experimentally observed in 2001. Of interest is the RAB-Model prediction that antimatter clusters also have a probability of being present within 3-Lithium-6 always in superposition with matter clusters. Thus, the RAB-Model is open to falsification if someone would look for antimatter.

Now, while the Standard Model also has a way to explain the stable nucleon structure of 3-Li-6 via complex interactions of independent nucleons of [P] and [N], the RAB-Model has a more simple explanation that the [P] and [N] are not independent within nuclear shells, but always exist as fundamental clusters. That is, the clusters are preexisting within the isotope--they have been present since the beginning of the universe. There are three fundamental nucleon clusters according to the RAB-Model (1) [NP], (2) [NPN], (3) [PNP]. These go by the common names, (1) deuteron, (2) triton, (3) helium-3. So-called 'halo' clusters are also possible [NN], [PP], [NNN], [PPP] which can form a quasi-stable resonance when within an isotope and bound to one of the three fundamental clusters. Of course, all of these have antimatter mirror structures, thus (1) [N^P^], (2)[N^P^N^], (3) [P^N^P^], and [N^N^], [P^P^], [P^P^P^] because the RAB-Model predicts complete symmetry between matter and antimatter.

Now, one can of course translate the nucleon cluster structure for 3-Li-6 to quark level. So, for one example, let us consider the RAB-Model prediction #1 for 3-Li-6:

1s {[ NP] + [ NP]}
1p {[ NP]}

this becomes the following quark cluster structures:

1s {[(ddu)(uud)] + [(ddu)(uud)]}
1p {[(ddu)(uud)]}

thus we see a 12-qcs as a rotating entity is bound to a 6-qcs as a second rotating entity and the result is a very stable isotope, 3-Li-6.

And then, the second Probability Stucture is:

1s {[(uud)(ddu)(uud)} = [PNP] = Helium-3
1p {[(ddu)(uud)(ddu)} = [NPN] = triton

a 9-qcs rotating into a second 9-qcs to form stable 3-Li-6.

[Note: all of the above is true also for antimatter helium-3 and triton]

Now, very important. See that this second Probability Structure violates the Standard Model prediction that the 1s energy shell must be completely filled before filling higher energy shells. The RAB-Model suggests that there are three possible 'wells' within each shell: (1) a 6-qcs well, (2) a 9-qcs well, and (3) a 12-qcs well. The RAB-Model also predicts that there are three different ways for the 1s shell to be stable: (1) there could be a 6-qcs, the deuteron [NP] cluster, which is stable, (2) there could be a 9-qcs, the 2-helium-3 [PNP], which is stable, (3) there could be a 12-qcs, {[NP]+[NP]}, the alpha or 2-helium 4, which is the most stable. The RAB-Model also predicts quark-bags not possible within the 1s shell, [NPN], [NN], [PP], [NNN], [PPP], thus the model provides beta stability selection rules, that is, various stable quark-sets that can be bonded to form beta-stable isotopes, of which there are many.

One could also diagram the matter + antimatter quark bag probabilities from above, but I will stop here and see if there are any questions.

One question I have--is anything presented above in conflict with predictions of the Dominium Model ? Do you see how 3-Li-6 could be formed in the early universe by union of rotating quark-bags in the various ways predicted by the RAB-Model ? It is known that Lithium was present very, very early in the universe, I believe at the exact same time as deuterium and helium isotopes. This would be in agreement with the RAB-Model because 3-Li-6 is predicted to be formed by the three fundamental clusters that would have been available in random manner to be so bonded.

If there is interest, I will next compare the structure of 3-Li-6 to 3-Li-7 as predicted by the RAB-Model, the only other stable isotope of Lithium. Then, I will discuss the RAB-Model predictions for the unstable Lithium isotopes and show how the RAB-Model predicts all the various beta-decay cross sections of Lithium to other elements. As I mentioned before, the RAB-Model is a model of the atomic nucleus that is complete, that is, it explains the nucleon structure for all known beta stable and unstable isotopes. It completely explains all known fusion and fission processes. The RAB-Model does not need other models to help explain structure of light or heavy isotopes, it is complete within itself. However, the RAB-Model may well require the Dominium Model to help it explain the dynamics of the quark interactions. This is what I try to understand by posting on this thread. My goal is to see if we can falsify the hypothesis that the Dominium Model helps explain the RAB-Model. If we find we cannot so falsify, then we have something of great importance.

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Eric,

As to the question of why photons are attracted to matter. Well, such a question is practically a moot point because it is a known fact that has been verified many times over. Using ultra large masses, like a black-hole, we have been able to see light bend—this data all points to an “attractive” nature. However, using kitchen objects, magnifying glass and a stopwatch, you would never be able to see those photons bend within your because of gravitation between objects. Even so, there are a lot of empirical observations of shimmers in cosmologic data that are directly implicated by this extremely predictable phenomena. Therefore, one can accept that matter gravitationally attracts light—almost categorically by this point in time.

As far as making light bend because of electric charge, you’re going to need a lot more than that 9V. Actually, I was thinking of a concentration of charge on par with the amount of matter in a black-hole meeded to cause light to visibly bend. Such a concept is certainty imaginable, therefore it is a situation that might someday exist within the Universe—if it does not already or has not in the past. However, having an amount of charge that is so big would fry the Earth. (Though I guess producing a spot of charge similarly concentrated, would be less hazardous than producing a sample of stable micro black-hole material. I say this because we know that a stable black-hole does only one thing—compact matter down smaller than 99.9% of its “normal” size, a person could be made to fit inside the space of a virus.) The only fate of breached containment of a concentrated charge sample that can be deduced, given the known nature of charge, is for the charge-particles to repel against each-other causing dispersal in all directions to achieve stability.

Actually, your post right now meshes quite well with the last post (Move 16) on to the part 2 thread. http://hypography.com/forums/alterna...tml#post268865 You see, Move 16 paints a picture of when the Universe reaches a condition where charge within the entire Universe is becoming less heterogeneous. Each dominium territory is gradually losing one type of charge and gaining the other. The Milky Way, for example and all other matter-based galaxies, are losing positrons, and both gaining and retaining electrons. As a result, the entire Milky Way dominium is gaining negative charge. As this charge is gained affects of increased charge at the invisible, yet tangible, bubble-boundaries between dominia. Especially it the object/lightsource in the far-ground was aligned with a side/long view along a dominial bubble boundary. Therefore, it is at the boundaries, and in the future, that one could expect charge built up to such a massive amount that it would start bending/repelling light. Eric, I believe that if the assertion that charge has the ability to bend light (through repulsion) will be an observed, rather than experimentally synthesized, observation.

If “enough” charge is concentrated at dominial borders, then one would expect to view two opposite sheerings of light. The manifestation of the data would appear as a thread or line, resembling a cross-section of what one views by looking through soap bubbles. The boundary would cause the data to be affected in three main regions. Assuming matter-based galaxy on the left, antimatter on the right; therefore electrons would accumulate on the left, while positrons accumulate on the right.

1. Light passing just to the left of the wall of electrons would be sheered left.
2. Light passing just to the right of the wall of positrons would be sheered right
3. Light passing through the middle

Therefore the predicted future observation would appear like a set of parallel lines of reduced photon counts… because of this electro-repulsive sheering. Perhaps, some day, data that appears in that form will be observed and recorded.

[Eric]

Hasanuddin

I think you're implying I was thinking my sort of test could also check for gravitational deflection, but I thought you recognised that I was already aware of gravitational deflection of light (mercury's light for example). My argument is that specifically attractive gravitational deflection of light doesn't follow from your model. I also don't see why we should argue that light is the antiparticle of itself as opposed to 'a different kettle of fish'.

On what basis should any charge based deflection be on the same level of that of gravity?: electromagnetic forces are 10^38 x stronger than gravitational That's why I would assume the result would have been known one way or another if there is deflection. Anyway, even without such a disparity, to compete with masses like the sun - you woudn't need to compress the charged matter at all. But you would need an awful lot of one type of charge in that amount of volume.

So far, I tried testing deflection of laser light running close and parallel to a bare live 12V wire - no deflection was apparent.

[Hasanuddin]

Hello Rade,

I’m sorry I’ve been slow at response, I was ending the school year. Grades dues, etc.

I want to respond to post 114 but you’ve got me confused. I thought a basic premise of the RAD model was the idea that protons, for example, are a conjoined conglomeration of 5-qcs. However, in the opening of post 114, you state that He-4 is made of only 12-qcs. I’d agree with that if we were talking in terms of concensus understanding He-4 is assumed to be made of 12 quarks. But under the RAD-model, shouldn’t He-4 be composed of 20 qsc for a grand total of 60 individuals, where 36 are quarks and 24 antiquarks? Which leaves a net of 12 matter-based quarks?

Please address this confusion before we go on.

[Rade]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

I want to respond to post 114 but you’ve got me confused. I thought a basic premise of the RAD model was the idea that protons, for example, are a conjoined conglomeration of 5-qcs. However, in the opening of post 114, you state that He-4 is made of only 12-qcs. I’d agree with that if we were talking in terms of concensus understanding He-4 is assumed to be made of 12 quarks. But under the RAD-model, shouldn’t He-4 be composed of 20 qsc for a grand total of 60 individuals, where 36 are quarks and 24 antiquarks? Which leaves a net of 12 matter-based quarks? Please address this confusion before we go on.

This is an excellent question. Here is my understanding of the situation.

Recall that the RAB-Model predicts that 2-helium-4 (the alpha) was formed in the early universe from strong bonding between two deuterium [NP], which then completed the first quantum 1s nuclear energy shell.

So, {[NP]+[NP]} = 2-helium-4 according to the RAB-Model.

This is possible when you consider that each [NP] is a boson and thus follow Bose-Einstein statistical dynamics that then allow for individual [NP] within distinct good quantum numbers to form union. Each [NP] has unique spin, angular momentum, magnetic moment, parity, etc, and it is thus possible for two [NP] to form a very stable union under certain conditions, which is what we call 2-helium-4, a very stable isotope indeed.

For the above to happen, individual [N] and [P] must first be bonded to form the stable [NP]--this would have happened very, very early in the formation of the universe. Recall from previous post that the RAB-Model predicts the following quark structure for these independent bayrons:

Matter Proton [P] = {(uud)(ddu)(uud)} + {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}

Matter Neutron [N] = {(ddu)(uud)(ddu)} + {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}

Recall that the RAB-Model predicts there is a matter<-->antimatter plus attractive gravity <-->repulsive gravity interaction allowing for the above stable coexistence of matter and antimatter WITHIN the [P] and [N] quark confinement.

However, there is not a similar interaction predicted BETWEEN any two individual nucleons, [P] and [N]. Thus, when, in the early universe, the [P] and [N] quark-bag structures came together, that is, when these two interacted randomly in localized areas of space and time in the early universe:

Matter Proton [P] = {(uud)|||||(ddu)(uud)} + {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}

Matter Neutron [N] = {(ddu)|||||(uud)(ddu)} + {(u^u^d^)(d^d^u^)}

there would be instantaneous annihilation between the mirror matter-antimatter quark bags BETWEEN the [P] and [N] (between those in red color and those in blue color). I included the ||||| to highlight the fact that the quark bags to the right (>) of ||||| are within the "sea" area of the baryon confinement, and the quark bags to the left (<) of ||||| are within the baryon core (also called the valence quarks). Thus the final result of this annihilation process would be:

{(ddu)} + {(uud)} = {(ddu)+(uud)} = [NP], stable duterium

In summary, the RAB-Model only predicts the attractive gravity <---> repulsive gravity, matter <--->antimatter interactions WITHIN the [P] and [N] quark confinement.

Important to note however, the RAB-Model does allow for mass asymmetrical nucleon clusters to coexist within isotopes, that is, it is possible to have for example antimatter clusters of deuterium [N^P^] to coexist with matter clusters of [NPN] or [PNP] within isotopes for the simple reason that the RAB-Model predicts that the quantum interaction is at the level of quark bags and not individual quarks.

Thus, 2-helium-4, does not have the extra "hidden" quark bags that you discuss for the simple reason that they underwent an annihilation process during the formation of 2-helium-4. Perhaps this explanation also helps to answer one of your previous questions, that is, how-where does RAB-model predict that matter+antimatter annihilation does (did) exist in the early history of the universe. The RAB-Model predicts significant such annihilation but only when similar mirror quark-bags interacted.

Of course, all I said above is true for antimatter 2-helium-4.

I hope this makes sense, let me know if not.

[Hasanuddin]

Eric,

Please try not to focus around I's and you's. One thing I've learned from this forum is that if those words can be avoided, they should be. Honestly, criticism was never intended. Simply I am trying to understand your meaning.

For example, in this last post it was said:

Originally posted by Eric in post 116:
I thought you recognised that I was already aware of gravitational deflection of light (mercury's light for example).

Sorry, but I am completely unaware or this position and also this example. What I was referring to was gravitational lensing, e.g. Gravitational Lensing

Next it is stated

Originally posted by Eric:
My argument is that specifically attractive gravitational deflection of light doesn't follow from your model.

Okay, how, why, and supply a hyperlink or some other evidence to back this assertion up. Or, go back to what I posted earlier, and give reason and or evidence why such assertions are flawed.

The next statement needs clarification

Originally posted by Eric:
I also don't see why we should argue that light is the antiparticle of itself as opposed to 'a different kettle of fish'.

First off, the Dominium position is to accept the consensus opinion that light is the antiparticle of itself as a basic premise. Never on these thread have I argued that case, though I suppose a hyperlink needs to be supplied to back up this basic premise Antiparticles

The combination of the known phenomenon of gravitational lensing and the accepted theory that light is the antiparticle of itself is what leads to the conclusion that antimatter will interact with light in the same manner that matter is known to, i.e., attraction.

Finally post 116 is ended with

Originally posted by Eric:
On what basis should any charge based deflection be on the same level of that of gravity?: electromagnetic forces are 10^38 x stronger than gravitational That's why I would assume the result would have been known one way or another if there is deflection. Anyway, even without such a disparity, to compete with masses like the sun - you woudn't need to compress the charged matter at all. But you would need an awful lot of one type of charge in that amount of volume.

So far, I tried testing deflection of laser light running close and parallel to a bare live 12V wire - no deflection was apparent.”

Please reread post 115. The amount of charge needed to cause light deflection would be on par (which does not mean the same) as the amount of mass needed to cause gravitational lensing. 12 V?...not even close. Sorry

[Eric]

Hasanuddin

I think its upto moderators to suggest my wording style is inappriate, I was simply responding to the perception that you believed I was hoping to also test gravitational repulsion later at my flat.

According to Theory: Antiparticles (SLAC VVC)
'force carrier particles cannot be classified as either matter or antimatter.' Force carrier particles are not listed under matter or antimatter in this link. The link you gave may not have responses by actual physicists - as a bulletin board system is referred to at the top.

I don't see that my criticism about light re. gravity and matter relates to a link. I was considering the logical implications of your premises if light can be assumed to be slotted into it. It seems to me it should then follow that light would deflect both towards and away from matter. If light reacts to matter gravitationally irrespectively of whether it is the (massless) matter or (equivalent) antimatter attribute that does so; why shouldn't light just aswell be deflected away from matter as antimatter would be?

I cannot find where you argue in that post why light deflection by charge would be of the same order as deflection by gravity.