The Dominium model by Hasanuddin

[modest]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

I just realized something that we have all forgotten, discussions here are forgetting a fundamental aspect of Babar and other attempts to show asymmetric decay. These discussions are ignoring the fact that only a handful of all events showed any possible asymmetry. The vast majority (well over 99%) of all events at Babar were normal symmetric pair-production. The status quo “solution,” re: the Big Bang, was to assume that all of the mass created symmetrically would have gone out of existence via annihilation, hence leaving us with an all-matter Universe. However, that assumption assumes "universal attraction" hence annihilation would be promoted rather than discouraged. On this thread were are also considering the necessary repercussions of gravitational repulsion.

You'll find this addressed in more detail in post #36.

A proton is made from two up quarks and one down quark. An up quark is roughly 0.003 GeV/c^2 while a down quark is roughly 0.006 GeV/c^2. Added together the mass of the quark (or antiquark) constituents of a proton is 0.009 GeV [edit: sorry, that's 0.012 GeV/c^2]. This is only 1.3% of the mass of the proton (or antiproton) that these quarks (or antiquarks) make up. A proton (or antiproton) has a mass of 0.938 GeV/c^2. The 98.7% of the mass of a proton that doesn't come from quarks (or antiquarks) comes from the binding energy in the form of gluons.

Gluons are their own antiparticle, so we know gluons will attract antigluons gravitationally. Thus, if the Dominium model is correct a proton / antiproton would attract each other with 97.4% the force of that which a proton / proton would attract each other. This does not lead to the conclusion of the OP that matter and antimatter would separate because of gravitational repulsion.

Unless gluons could in some way be said to gravitationally repel other gluons the Dominium model's main argument seems faulty.

~modest

[Moontanman]

Did you say the gluon was massive?

Gluon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The gluon is a vector boson; like the photon, it has a spin of 1. While massive spin-1 particles have three polarization states, massless gauge bosons like the gluon have only two polarization states because gauge invariance requires the polarization to be transverse. In quantum field theory, unbroken gauge invariance requires that gauge bosons have zero mass (experiment limits the gluon's mass to less than a few MeV). The gluon has negative intrinsic parity and zero isospin. It is its own antiparticle.[citation needed]

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Did you say the gluon was massive?

More or less, yes, I did. Precisely what I said – and precise language is needed on this subject – is:

Originally Posted by CraigD

For example, for an atom of hydrogen, each of the 2 U quarks in its proton mass about 3 MeV, the 1 D quark about 6, its electron about 0.5, and the gluons binding the 3 quarks together about 926, so about 97% of its mass is in the form of gluons, a ratio roughly the same for all atomic matter.

Note that I didn’t say the invariant (rest) mass of a gluon is non-zero. Like the photon, the gluon is believed by most to have zero rest mass, but travel always at the speed of light, so have effectively a finite, non-zero “relativistic mass”.

So, via the distinction between relativistic mass and rest mass, the statements “gluons have rest mass zero” and “most of the mass of a proton or neutron is in the form of gluons” don’t contradict one another.

Usually, we only call a particle “massive” when it has non-zero rest mass. The important point in all this, however, is that even particles with zero rest mass can exert gravitational force.

[Hasanuddin]

Post 61 was one of the oddest volleys yet. It begins by quoting my epiphany in post 58 that we were chasing our tails over nothing. Yet, that quote is never addressed... neither agreeing nor disagreeing, huh? So what was the point of quoting me?

Moves 6-7 are now on the table, but nothing is addressed from them either.

Instead of addressing any issues on the table post 61 begins with a short synopsis of quarks… cool, but the point?—it doesn’t relate at all to the quote coming before it. Hmm, let me see… oh I get it, the point is to resurrect the “quarks/antiquarks and electrons/positrons are irrelevant assessment” that CraigD appeared to pose in post 36. Sorry, but quarks, antiquarks, electrons, and positrons do exist, and they existed very early on. Let me explain.

The questions posed by this thread begin at a Time Zero where particles have formed. In other words, at a time when quarks, antiquarks, electrons, and positrons had formed and did have relevance—therefore, they cannot be ignored or wished away. The gluons had bound and matter and antimatter defined.

Arguments presented are based on a time before the formation of both particles and antiparticles, also they are both speculative because they not verifiable by any tangible empirical natural evidence.

For example

Originally posted by Modest
Gluons are their own antiparticle, so we know gluons will attract antigluons gravitationally.

Although the postulate is presented as fact, is possesses no actual documentation. How could it? It is quite established that the gravitational interaction between much larger particles and antiparticles has never been documented… how then can anyone believe that the gravitational properties of subparticles could be known? Whether these conditions are predicted formulaically is not the same as a categorical verified piece of evidence.

As far as post 36 is concerned, I am aligned with 90% of what CraigD asserted in that post and I replied point by point in post 39. What I do not agree with (which Modest appears to be referencing) is,

Originally posted by CraigD
Consider, by way of explanation, that most of the mass of ordinary matter is not due to particles that are not their own antiparticles – quarks and electrons – but due to gluons.

No, I’m sorry, I will not consider that quarks and electrons are irrelevant. There is no basis to ignore their presence or relevance. Again, the only time they were irrelevant was before they gluons had bound to form them. However, none of the assertions on this thread had been about that time before quarks, antiquarks, electrons, and positrons.

Actually, I was quite happy to see:

Originally posted by CraigD
Note that I didn’t say the invariant (rest) mass of a gluon is non-zero. Like the photon, the gluon is believed by most to have zero rest mass, but travel always at the speed of light, so have effectively a finite, non-zero “relativistic mass”.

So, via the distinction between relativistic mass and rest mass, the statements “gluons have rest mass zero” and “most of the mass of a proton or neutron is in the form of gluons” don’t contradict one another.

I was happy to see this because it sincerely portrays the theoretical and paradoxical aspects being discussed. Also, it appears to iron-out the idea that quarks, antiquarks, electrons, and positrons are NOT irrelevant. The reason I say this is because the contradictory conclusions being made that gluons account for 97% of the mass of a proton, while having a zero rest mass necessitate that this discussion be exclusively based on conditions when gluons are, in fact, bound into quarks/antiquarks thereby supplying the relevant mass necessary to begin talking about gravitational interactions.

Although this is an interesting topic, it does appear to be a tangent that is not related to any of the seven moves of the Dominium. Or the fact that the Babar experiments would only establish a 51:49 ratio of matter to antimatter; that the entire system would have been in a state of chaos; that GR would result in self-assembly; that gravitational attraction would have induced clumping; and that conditions of an expansive Universe with galaxies would have been established.

There are now seven moves on the table and a number of other issues of relevance.

[modest]

I'm sorry if my post was unclear. I am responding to this comment:

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

The status quo “solution,” re: the Big Bang, was to assume that all of the mass created symmetrically would have gone out of existence via annihilation, hence leaving us with an all-matter Universe. However, that assumption assumes "universal attraction" hence annihilation would be promoted rather than discouraged. On this thread were are also considering the necessary repercussions of gravitational repulsion.

This quoted comment ignores what has already been established in this thread. Namely: Gauge bosons such as gluons and photons must gravitationally attract regardless because they are their own antiparticle. Most of the mass in matter or antimatter comes from gauge bosons as is revealed here:

In a hadron most of the mass comes from the gluons that bind the constituent quarks together, rather than from the individual quarks. While gluons are inherently massless, they possess energy, and it is this energy that contributes so greatly to the overall mass of the hadron (see mass in special relativity). For example, a proton is composed of one d and two u quarks and has an overall mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the mass of three valence quarks contributes around 11 MeV/c2, with the remainder coming from the quantum chromodynamics binding energy (QCBE) provided by sea quarks and gluons.

Quark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The gluon binding energy is by far where most of the mass of an atom exists. The comment above wishes to discuss the "repercussions of gravitational repulsion". If particles are gravitationally repulsed by antiparticles then a hydrogen star composed of matter would attract an antihydrogen star made of antimatter with more than 90% of the force the same two stars would attract if they were both matter. This is because the gluons in one would attract the gluons in the other regardless of their matter / antimatter configuration.

Gluons are their own antiparticles and gluons make up most of the mass of matter and antimatter. Since your model is based on the segregation of these two things by gravitational repulsion you seem to have a rather large huddle to overcome.

Perhaps you could propose that gluons are not their own antiparticle, but rather the only difference between gluons and antigluons is their gravitational effects. This would add another unsupported assumption to your model, but it would take care of this problem.

~modest

[Hasanuddin]

Now, I will play the Devil’s-Advocate game for a pause. Okay, let's pretend that the period before the establishment of particles was a time when gluons attracted because they are their own antiparticle. Fine, therefore gluons would begin to interact with one another. So? Wouldn’t such interaction just lead to the establishment of the more familiar gluon-bound larger particles and/or antiparticles? If you are trying to suggest that gluon interaction would lead to the annihilation of the 99% of expected symmetric matter/antimatter…then you have yet to make any case. You see, if gluons are the antiparticle of itself, then there really is no such thing as an “antigluon.” If there’s no such thing as a proper antigluon, then annihilation could not occur. Therefore, as the Universe would be expected to cool and reach new levels of stability, eventually proper matter and antimatter would be formed and annihilations would begin. (This is the Time Zero that begins the Dominium deductive analysis.) Assuming observations at Babar were close to accurate, pre-annihilation extermination ratios would be 49:51; GR would lead to self-assembly; like/like attraction would lead to clumping; and still the establishment of an organized evenly distributed Universe of galaxies with ever expansion would result. Hence, the gluon arguments proposed are of no consequence; and they are of no consequence precisely because they are the antiparticles of themselves.

The end of post 65 is full of confusion.

Originally posted by Modest
If particles were gravitationally repulsed by antiparticles then a hydrogen star composed of matter would attract an antihydrogen star made of antimatter with more than 90% of the force the same two stars would attract if they were both matter.

Sorry, according to the Dominium model, a hydrogen star could never be closed to an antihydrogen star. Remember the uncontended Dominium moves established on this thread: because of the Dark Event, establishment of immiscible boundaries, and self-assortment, galaxies are either matter-based or antimatter based. Those assertions were made very early on this thread. Please be careful not to introduce hypotheticals that are not even hypothetical.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

Okay, let's pretend that the period before the establishment of particles was a time when gluons attracted because they are their own antiparticle. Fine, therefore gluons would begin to interact with one another. So?

I believe Hasanuddin misunderstands the points Modest, I, and others have been making about gauge bosons that are their own antiparticles (or, equivalently, have not antiparticles), gravity, and the implications for the Standard Model (SM) if atoms of antimater actually repel atoms of mater.

First, “a time when gluons attracted” is not restricted to an early period of the universe, but includes right now. The main point, however, involved the SM.

In its present form, the SM, specifically the QCD part of the theory, predicts that gluons have no antiparticles. This is not just an arbitrary definition, but a consequence of QCD. Rewriting QCD and the SM so that it predicts anti-gluons would be a profound change, essentially, I think, throwing out the idea of color charge, and possible quarks and gluons altogether. A large body of experimental data (eg: deep inelastic scattering experiments), however, supports these theories so strongly that it's hard to imagine such a profound rewrite.

I get the impression, Hasanuddin, that because direct experimental confirmation that atomic mater and antimatter gravitationally attract hasn’t been published, you consider the claim is unfounded. What I and others have attempted to show in this thread is that this is not the case, but rather that the claim is supported by a large body of theory that is well experimentally verified. This helps to explain why physicist, such as those in the ALPHA Collaboration, have not made direct measurements of the affect of gravity on antimatter a top priority – the supporting theoretical evidence that it is affected as expected is considered so strong by physicists that they see little need to directly confirm it.

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

Wouldn’t such interaction just lead to the establishment of the more familiar gluon-bound larger particles and/or antiparticles?

If I understand your question, Hasanuddin, no.

It’s important to understand that, compared to the forces dominating quark-gluon interactions, gravity is very weak (about times as strong – see the wikipedia article “fundamental interaction”), so much so that the Standard Model is considered an excellent description of these interactions even though it doesn’t include gravitational interactions at all.

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

If there’s no such thing as a proper antigluon, then annihilation could not occur.

I suspect everyone who has studied particle physics has experience perplexity and confusion leading to entertaining this assertion.

IMHO, key to overcoming this confusion is an understanding of what, in particle physical terms, “annihilation” means. It does not mean every elementary particle in a composite particle and its antiparticle, such as a proton and antiproton, interact with its antiparticle.

In the case of electron-positron annihilation, in which all particles are elementary, the positron and electron are replaced by two photons with energy and momentum equal to the electron and positron.

Proton-antiproton annihilation is more complicated, but in short, each of the proton’s three quarks annihilates with its antiparticle in the antiproton in a manner similar to electron-positron annihilation. Because of color confinement, the remaining gluons are left in an impermissible state, and rapidly undergo a series of transformation into other short-lived particles, neutrally charged particles such as Z bosons and particle-antiparticle pairs such as quark-antquarks and electron-positron pairs, which annihilate, ultimately producing lots of photons. The ”decay” section of the wikipedia article section “W and Z bosons” has a short discussion of this process.

[Hasanuddin]

I believe we not actually in disagreement on all levels--though there are some misunderstandings that exist between each other’s meanings.

First, I was sleepy when I typed “a time when gluons attracted”…I was inexact, I apologize. I was referring to the time in Big Bang creation before gluons had been bound into the cement of protons, antiprotons, etc. This time is the time immediately before the consideration of the Dominium deductive analysis. The fact that quarks and gluons (as well as antiquarks and gluons) eventually bound is a certainty evidenced by our planet and empirically gathered from astrologic observation. I also understand that when gluons, quarks, and antiquarks are momentarily freed from their bound configurations that does not last long, and their decay is pretty well understood and documented.

I accept the notion that 97% of the mass of both protons and antiprotons comes from the binding energy of gluons. That is fine. My position was misunderstood; I do not advocate a rewrite of QCD. I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that gluons have no antiparticle. I also accept that the gluons that were assembled in the two cases are no different than each other (i.e., gluons are just gluons.) However, that does not necessarily mean that the assemblage need be identical nor that the resulting assembled products (e.g., protons vs. antiprotons) need be anything like the parts from which they were assembled, nor do the two necessarily need be like each other (This statement is made in terms of Formal Logic, not the Standard Model.) To make any such conclusion in this direction commits the informal fallacy of Converse Accident.

However, I do agree with a previous statement that CraigD made with regard to the Standard Model and parity. I agree that protons and antiprotons should be expected to have the same qualities as each other. I hope it is evident to those reading this thread that the proposed qualitative relationship between matter and antimatter is the mirror relationship that is known between two other particles that possess known qualities as each other: fundamental (+) and (-) charges.

For charge, the known relationship is:
A<>A
B<>B
A><B

Whereas the proposed Dominium antimatter to matter relationship is:
A><A
B><B
A<>B

I believe this aligns with the Standard Model’s notion of symmetry and interrelationships between fundamental forces. Hence, the proposed relationship is not only justified, it is fundamentally justified.

I respect your faith in status quo theories. If the Dominium is correct, then most of the theories, to which you are now referring, I expect will remain perfectly intact. Therefore, in these, your faith is justified; as you state, those that are most believable have been verified through observation. In fact it is only a few theories are directly targeted by the Dominium, e.g., the current explanation for the solar wind, the latest reckoning to explain Integral’s mapping of the antimatter cloud surrounding the galactic center, and the current assumption for the absence of antimatter in our locale. Other theories would be only partially affected by a lens change, though fundamentally remain much the same as they are today. If the Dominium is correct, it may take many years to iron out which aspects of which theories need to be reconsidered and which are fine. But because there is a potential disruption of the applecart, via the Dominium model, it is not justified to use existing, yet uncorroborated portions of current assumptions as a means of attacking the new model. No, to discredit the new model, it is the evidentiary record, potential anomalies in the data, and/or conflicts between the new model and conflict with empirically established facts that are needed.

I am curious about one claim of post 67, to the notion that as time went on and the original energy of the Big Bang was dissipated that the system adjusted to reach increasingly stable configurations. Although I made this statement as a rhetorical question, it was actually an assertion that I was surprised to see contradicted. This is how it was framed in post 67:

I do not think you did understand the “question”/statement. The idea that gluons eventually bound/bind to both quarks and antiquarks to produce both matter and antimatter is a non-debatable truism. This is evidenced in both our Earth that is made of matter and in high-energy experiments showing pair production. Therefore, the notion that the Big Bang fireball went from a state of free and unbound gluons and quarks/antiquarks to a condition with protons and antiprotons had been formed is a certainty, not a questionable point. Again, it is from this point, where particles become bound, that the Dominium deductive analysis begins.

Can we commence the Discussion of the new model? There is a lot on the table. (And I'm going to be leaving on Monday for Italy w/ my in-laws for two weeks, i.e., forbidden access to a computer.) I would however like to get Move 8 on the block, since the Integral Satelite took that from my least comfortable most speculative portion, to one that was amazingly verified.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Hasanuddin

I do not think you did understand the “question”/statement. The idea that gluons eventually bound/bind to both quarks and antiquarks to produce both matter and antimatter is a non-debatable truism. This is evidenced in both our Earth that is made of matter and in high-energy experiments showing pair production. Therefore, the notion that the Big Bang fireball went from a state of free and unbound gluons and quarks/antiquarks to a condition with protons and antiprotons had been formed is a certainty, not a questionable point. Again, it is from this point, where particles become bound, that the Dominium deductive analysis begins.

It is at this point (when subatomic particles are formed and make their first atoms) that the problem arises. You now have hydrogen in the vicinity of antihydrogen. While it seems sensible (according to the dominium model) for these two to repulse and segregate gravitationally it must be under consideration what these atoms are made of. What makes up their mass? If you want to say: matter and matter are drawn together with an equal yet opposite force that matter and antimatter are pushed apart (which is indeed what the dominium model is claiming) then there is a problem.

The mass of hydrogen is mostly in the form of gluons and the mass of antihydrogen is mostly in the form of gluons. Why would the mass of hydrogen repulse the mass of antihydrogen gravitationally if they are both made from the same stuff? We know the mass of gluons does not repulse the mass of other gluons gravitationally. This is a very valid objection which the model has not addressed.

~modest

[Hasanuddin]

Okay, now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty of the problem: and indeed, the problem is confusion caused by the deceptively sound “appearing”, yet totally unsound application of the informal fallacy Converse Accident. This becomes apparent in the following string of thought:

Originally posted by Modest
“What makes up their mass? … The mass of hydrogen is mostly in the form of gluons and the mass of antihydrogen is mostly in the form of gluons. Why would the mass of hydrogen repulse the mass of antihydrogen gravitationally if they are both made from the same stuff?”

Bingo! I have never seen a clearer example of this particular fallacy. I mean no offence, the fallacies have bedeviled the smartest of the smart for centuries. It is easy to get tricked by them.

Essentially what is being concluded is that the constructed particle will possess characteristics based on the properties of what it is constructed of. That however is not necessarily true. Just look to basic Chemistry, or better yet biochem, where most everything is made up of CHON, yet yielding dizzying results based on arrangement.

In the case we are considering, gluons are the building blocks. How they are arranged is not yet known or certain in any way; however, it seems clearly obvious that in order to form a proton or antiproton they must achieve some sort of structure. However, to conclude that the internal structures of protons, for example, are fashioned in exactly the same construction antiprotons is unfounded, and a hunch at best. Even if the same exact number of gluons and quarks is needed, the intricacies and resulting dynamics need not be the same. Just like in biochem, the same numbers of CHON atoms can be arranged in many different ways. It is also clear from biochem examples that it is the arrangement that fundamentally determines the characteristics—not the building blocks themselves.

There is no valid reason to suspect that the construction and arrangement leading to different species of matter and antimatter don’t also lead to resulting characteristic that could be vastly different than the raw materials used in construction. Therefore, to suggest that between protons and antiprotons there could be displayed repulsive force is not at all off base. Such a dynamic could be possible depending on the dynamics induced by the ultimate interplay of the final assemblage.