The Dominium model by Hasanuddin

[Hasanuddin]

Dear Erasmus00,

Hmm, so you're saying that E=mc2 (pair production), one of the most confirmed high-erengy events known, is a lie? All that LEP data is false? Huh, when I was studying at CERN nine years ago I was told by technicians that E=mc2 was one of the most documented (boring) events that occurred inside LEP. That they considered it to be such a known fact (equal amounts of matter and antimatter and positive and negative charge always produced) that the key was to filter out all the pair prodcution noise, to try to find something truly interesting. Huh, now you're trying to say that they had it all wrong? Wow... I'd be very interested if you had a point... many text books would be wrong also (which I guess isn't a big deal since most things have a degree of error to them.)

Question: are you citing data... or are your referring to a mathematical musing that is not linked to empirical evidence?

*By the way, even if you are "correct" that E=mc2 isn't perfectly symmetric, that doesn't change the Dominium deductive conclusions. Conditions do not necessarily need to be 50:50 in order for self-assembly to occur. Even if limited CP "Violation" occurs, self-assemblage of the different dominia would also occur. The galaxies would still be established and expansion would still occur. {Nice try}

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

Hmm, so you're saying that E=mc2 (pair production), one of the most confirmed high-erengy events known, is a lie?

You are confusing two things- E=mc^2 just tell us photons/etc can be converted to matter, it doesn't specify that it has to be matter/anti-matter symmetric. In general, other conservation laws (like charge), require a balance of matter/anti matter.

Huh, now you're trying to say that they had it all wrong? Wow... I'd be very interested if you had a point... many text books would be wrong also (which I guess isn't a big deal since most things have a degree of error to them.)

Any textbook written after 1965 or so should mention the CP asymmetry. The 1980 nobel prize was awarded to Cronin and someone I can't remember for this discovery. It is confirmed data (see information of Kaon oscillations).

*By the way, even if you are "correct" that E=mc2 isn't perfectly symmetric, that doesn't change the Dominium deductive conclusions.

Actually, it could. If matter is more likely to be produced in certain reactions, then its possible that after the first few moments of the big bang these reactions drove anti-matter into matter, so there was very little anti-matter left.

[Hasanuddin]

Dear Eramus00,

Words… lots of words; let’s see some asserted facts that are tied to actual natural observations and/or experimentation.

First of all, I believe that it you who are a bit confused. “CP Violation” refers to Sakharov’s suggestion of asymmetric decay… put simply, that antimatter conveniently “vanished” leaving us with the popular-bias view of an all-matter Universe. There are several facilities around the world that have tried to prove Sakharov’s assumptions (Babar, FermiLab, CERN…) but none have been able to do so beyond margins of error. One Russian detector specialist friend of mine even confided that the best “evidence” that had come out in favor of asymmetric decay could easily be attributed to a faulty CEM or other simple error. The other problem with the notion of asymmetric decay is that given the best-case fluke results (I say that because such trials couldn’t be repeated/reproduced predictably) the amount of “matter” in the visible Universe cannot be accounted for. Essentially, the explanation of the evidentiary anomaly of lack of antimatter is traded in for an evidentiary anomaly of too much matter. That is a zero-sum trade-off.

Sakharov never questioned the symmetry of pair production because that is easily, and commonly, reproduced. My understanding is that symmetric pair production accounts for up to 99.9% of initial collision data coming out of high-energy events. The initial reason for this world-wide-web, that we now use to communicate, was to extract all of this ultra common predicable symmetric noise to be able to find that one needle-in-the-haystack. You appear to be calling into question that data, without provided any data of your own.

If I were a betting man, and I’m not, I’d wager that you are using one of those bastardized “Standard Models,” which I hope you realize is no longer the Standard Model. Sorry, but in the Standard Model that I know and love, it says: charge, parity, and time (CPT) all are conserved. To that Standard Model, both Friedmann and Sakharov assume violation. Actually to any who assume and all-matter Universe, must ultimately violate the Standard Model. Hence the need and development of bastardized versions because the results "feel" more comfortable though the paradox is simply buried, not solved—no “violation” appears to occur because the basic theorem has been mutated to meet the need of producing predetermined desired outcome of an all-matter Universe.

Conversely, compared against the original and pure version of the Standard Model, the Dominium is in 100% accordance, and no corruption is needed to reach its conclusions.

What to you say to my charge that Sakharov’s wish that the Universe be all-matter is based on committing the informal fallacy of “Composition,” i.e., basing conclusion for the composition of an entire system based on a very limited and localized samples/sampling? Subsequently, he fashioned mathematical proofs (in the spirit of Ptolemy) to reach his preconceived conclusion? I also believe that the bastardized versions of the “Standard Model” (which you appear to be quoting) were formed by similar human Ptolemaic desires to force the math to reach a preestablished consensus conclusions. Although this process is not scientific, it is a dangerous and well documented perversion of both science and logic to achieve outcomes that are deceptively alluring but ultimately hollow and false.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

Words… lots of words; let’s see some asserted facts that are tied to actual natural observations and/or experimentation.

Look at the 1980 nobel prize work of Cronin on Kaon oscillations, as I suggested above. CP violation has been measured.

First of all, I believe that it you who are a bit confused. “CP Violation” refers to Sakharov’s suggestion of asymmetric decay…

This is actually incorrect- CP violation refers to a violation of a specific symmetry (Charge conjugation AND parity reversal).

What Sakharov did was to show that in order for a matter universe to emerge from the big bang, certain conditions needed to be satisfied. You need processes that are baryon number violating, that are CP violating, and that are C violating.

There are several facilities around the world that have tried to prove Sakharov’s assumptions (Babar, FermiLab, CERN…) but none have been able to do so beyond margins of error.

This isn't quite true- CP violation has been established beyond a doubt, the 1980 nobel prize was awarded for it! No baryon violating process has ever been established.

If I were a betting man, and I’m not, I’d wager that you are using one of those bastardized “Standard Models,” which I hope you realize is no longer the Standard Model. Sorry, but in the Standard Model that I know and love, it says: charge, parity, and time (CPT) all are conserved.

This isn't true. C, P, and T are not individually conserved. Only charge conjugation+parity+time reversal is conserved. All weak interactions in the standard model maximally violate parity (see Wu's work on the beta decay of cobalt), and there are CP violating CKM mixing processes (see Kobayashi and Maskawa's work, or there 2008 nobel speech)

[Hasanuddin]

Dear Erasmus,

You’re correct; the Nobel Prize was awarded for the suggestive work by Cronin in the ‘80s. Cool, and I’m not going to begrudge the guy for his prize or the funds given him to continue his work. But, the way you’re presenting things is that the Nobel automatically constitutes correctness and, therefore, we should all extend blind acceptance to all work done by winners of Nobels. Such hero worship of laureate is a dangerous and unscientific practice—though I’ve seen many folks faun and swoon in the presence of folks who have won Nobels. There is the very real possibility that Cronin’s work could be 100% on-base but only show one part of the overall story. For example, the apparent violations of fundamental symmetry principles in the decay of neutral K-mesons could be complemented by a yet to be observed complementary asymmetric decay favoring antimatter. If that were the case then perfect symmetry would still result. *Note: this is only a possibility, not a categorical assertion.

Actually the fervor of your post brings up a very interesting philosophical question: Did all Nobel laureates contribute equally to the advancement of science? The answer is obviously “No.” Another question comes to mind: What does the Nobel committee do on particularly slow years?…withhold the prize?…or just give it to the most potentially promising? Personally I’d hope that they give it away to someone in the hope that person can make their work bare fruit (all labs could use more resources)…but in doing so, couldn’t that inadvertently signal a seal of absolute “Nobel-correctness” on work that was still incomplete? Looking back at the records a year has never been skipped. With that evidence it begs the question: Has the Nobel committee ever given out the prize in error, to someone not truly deserving, or for some claim that that was not a justifiable advancement—or just plain wrong? A very interesting question… and one that I am not prepared to answer. However, given statistic probabilities, eventually the answer will be, “Yes.”

For the sake of this thread there is no reason to quibble over either the merits of Nobels of the past or the intricacies of the definitions of CP Violation assumptions, because both subjects are tangential/superfluous to the issues being discussed.

In post #38, I laid out a six-step way using the Dominium premise to go from the Big Bang to a Universe with galaxies that are expanding apart from each other. You interjected in post #40 and tried to stop me at the first step attempting to claim pair-production (E=mc2) is an asymmetric process. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to back up this claim. Without such evidence, your arguments against the Dominium fall apart as tangential fluff. Please get back on topic, defend your original point, and begin to discuss the deductive analysis that is this model.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

You interjected in post #40 and tried to stop me at the first step attempting to claim pair-production (E=mc2) is an asymmetric process.

First, there is the question of pair production FROM what? Gravitons? Some inflationary field? Does your model accept an inflationary epoch and reheating?

In modern physics, all energy is carried by some particle (photons, gravitons, Ws, Zs), so pair production is a bit of a misnomer, rather we should talk of particle scattering (photons scattering into electron/positrons, or into quark/antiquarks, etc).

As I've said there are definite, measured asymmetries between matter and antimatter built into the standard model, so the real question is, why should we expect an exact symmetry?

Edit: Also, as far as nobels go, the prize is very conservative. Cronin got the prize in the 80s for work done in the 60s. The prize is given for discoveries that stand the test of time.

[Hasanuddin]

Dear Erasmus00,

You continue to evade providing evidence that pair-production is an asymmetric phenomenon. You talk of “misnomers” but you name no evidence—the only misnomer I see it what you consider to be “evidence.” Formulaic musings are not evidence, nor are they necessarily bound to nature or anything empirical. You try to switch the subject by demanding I name the source of energy that was the Big Bang’s “E” that led to the “mc2” that was to become our Universe…but you are just evading the REAL question, by trying to reframe a new one. No, it is not me who must do the explaining; it is you. You categorically asserted that pair-production is an asymmetric phenomenon. That was your reasoning behind objecting to the Dominium six-steps from Big Bang to a Universe with galaxies that is expanding. It was a very bold statement; one that requires evidence.

Pair-production is one of the most common occurrence in all high-energy labs. Tons of experiments have been conducted where pair-production conversions from some form of energy to mass have been documented. If it is such a blatantly asymmetric occurrence, as you would have us believe, then surely someone has charted the degree of predictable asymmetry. Show us such a chart; show us a link; show us some form of data confirming your pair-production asymmetry "hypothesis."

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

You ... you ... you

I would like to point out that there is a ping-pong tendency in this thread. It would be nice if you could all stay on topic and avoid ad hominem attacks. Look to, for example, CraidD's posts for examples on how to discuss the matter (pun intended) at hand instead of demanding responses from each other on this or that question.

Consider this a friendly hint that we have some site rules.

[modest]

An interesting paper by Andrei Sakharov written in 1966 and published in 1967 is now often-cited as the "Sakharov conditions". These conditions (there are 3) must be met for a universe with non-zero baryon number to evolve from a baryon-symmetric state.

1. Baryon number must be violated efficiently, early in the universe,
2. The discrete symmetries C and CP must be violated,
3. The universe must fall out of thermal equilibrium, at the precise moment when baryon number switches from being efficiently violated, to being almost exactly conserved.

All 3 are quite consistent with the standard models of particle physics and astronomy. It is therefore inconsistent to claim baryon-symmetry at some point in the universe's history (which is itself an assumption) leads necessarily to the conclusion of baryon-symmetry today. In particular, our observation of direct CP violation makes any such assumption highly irregular.

I recommend section 9 page 5 of CP Violation – An Essential Mystery in Nature’s Grand Design. A small snippet:

Actually we know more, namely that at least in our corner of the universe there are practically no primary antibaryons:



It is conceivable that in other neighbourhoods antimatter dominates and that the universe is formed by a patchwork quilt of matter and antimatter dominated regions with the whole being matter-antimatter symmetric. Yet it is widely held to be quite unlikely – primarily because no mechanism has been found by which a matter-antimatter symmetric universe following a big bang evolution can develop sufficiently large regions with non-vanishing baryon number. While there will be statistical fluctuations, they can be nowhere near large enough. Likewise for dynamical effects: baryon-antibaryon annihilation is by far not sufficiently effective to create pockets with the observed baryon number...

<...>

The question is: under which condition can one have a situation where the baryon number of the universe that vanishes at the initial time – which for all practical purposes is the Planck time – develops a non-zero value later on:



One can and should actually go one step further in the task one is setting for oneself: explaining the observed baryon number as dynamically generated no matter what its initial value was!

~modest

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

You try to switch the subject by demanding I name the source of energy that was the Big Bang’s “E” that led to the “mc2” that was to become our Universe…but you are just evading the REAL question, by trying to reframe a new one.

I'm not trying to evade your question, I'm trying to sharpen it. What do you mean by energy? In standard big bang cosmology, after inflation, all the energy is in an inflationary field. We have no direct evidence for such a field, so I cannot have empirical evidence for you.

However, lets say your mass is entirely in B mesons. The matter/antimatter asymmetry in b meson decay was measured in 2001 at BaBar. See [hep-ex/0407057] Direct CP Violating Asymmetry in B0 -> K+pi- Decays Similarly, we know Kaon oscillations have a matter/antimatter asymmetry. This has been measured.

Lets say you symmetrically pair produce bottoms, which form B mesons, which then asymmetrically decay- you end up with an imbalance even though you symmetrically pair produced.

Tons of experiments have been conducted where pair-production conversions from some form of energy to mass have been documented.

Its not actually pair production from energy- in accelerators we send in, say, electrons and positrons, and out come other particles (say, bottom, antibottom pairs).

Also, consider processes mediated by W bosons, in these, electrons and anti-neutrinos are produced. These aren't symmetric.