Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity

Let’s talk about anti-matter, terminology, and confusion.

Baryon Asymmetry, i.e., Missing Anti-Matter Problem
Why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?

WIKIPEDIA

The universe is made of energetic electrinos and positrinos overlaid on Euclidean time and space. That’s it! Electrinos, positrinos, and energy are each conserved, so a priori we know that nothing is missing. All assemblies are emergent. including the standard model particles including the Higgs which is a very low apparent energy æther made from point charge assemblies that implements Einstein’s spacetime. Aether interacts so weakly at macro scales as to defy detection and understanding. Michelson-Morley incorrectly dismissed the aether.

All assemblies in nature are powered by pro and/or anti Noether cores. Noether cores are nested tri-dipoles. It turns out that Higgs aether is made of couplings of low apparent energy pro and anti Noether cores. Photons are coaxial, planar, pro and anti Noether cores that contrarotate and generate the familiar electromagnetic wave. So even at the assembly level we are certain that we have an overall balance. Still, we must consider the fermions. Are they all based on pro Noether cores?

I asked the following on reddit r/particlephysics.

Q : Is it possible that when we know exactly how anti-ness is implemented by nature that we will find that we may have reversed some polarities in our nomenclature? For example, with the knowledge of anti-ness might we find that the down quark, really should have been called the down anti-quark and vice versa? This might be a meaningful distinction in multi-quark structures like the proton or neutron. Do the three quarks in each nucleon definitely not present what nature implements as anti-ness? Can we really differentiate between ‘pro-ness’ and anti-ness or is this more a vague concept with a few points of connection to theory?

R : Different types of quarks can convert to each other but not to antiquarks, so keeping these together makes sense. You could argue that we should call leptons anti-leptons and vice versa, as the difference between baryon number (from quarks) and lepton number is conserved “stronger” than the sum. Swap the label and now we can say the sum of baryon number and lepton number is conserved.

Despite particle physicists being perplexed about missing anti-matter, let’s alleviate the mysticism right away — we are in no danger of an imbalance of electrinos and positrinos in the universe. It is difficult to imagine that on a large scale the distribution is anything other than 50% electrinos and 50% positrinos. However, still there are always questions about where are the anti-particles? Well, if leptons are really switched pro for anti, that will solve the mystery.

The “anti-particle” terminology is less than optimal to me. First off, what is the opposite of anti-ness? Pro-ness? I guess, but the vernacular is to omit the ‘pro’. So we have particles and anti-particles and never the ‘twain shall meet.

I have absolutely no clue about the proportions of electrons, neutrinos, and quarks produced by super high energy events (e.g., supermassive black hole jets). Shall we imagine that half the Noether cores are pro and the other half anti? Shall we imagine that of all the stable fermions, 25% are electrons, 25% up quarks, 25% down quarks, and 25% neutrinos? Those are symmetric distributions in a sense. However, in a larger sense it doesn’t really matter.

The vast concentration of electrinos and positrinos in the universe are in two forms : 1) spacetime aether, aka dark matter, aka spacetime, aka Bose-Einstein condensate, aka quantum vacuum and 2) black hole interiors. I wonder what the next big category is by point charge count? Perhaps photons and neutrinos. Everything else in the middle accounts for a small percentage of matter and energy. Note that these top categories balance electrinos and positrinos precisely.

• Spacetime aether : This are the very low apparent energy assemblies that permeate the universe. It seems likely to contain Higgs particles with high shielded energy. It may also contain a collection of ultimately redshifted photons (6:6) and neutrinos (6:6). Essentially the aether is a sea of low apparent energy pro and anti Noether cores, possibly coupled together. The aether is certainly a candidate for the source of dark matter and dark energy.
• Black hole interiors : Well presumably black holes are sucking in at least some excited spacetime aether as well as pro and anti Noether cores in structures. What do they all ultimately smash down to? A Planck core of point charges with closest packing? Is there any pro and anti-ness in a Planck core? I don’t think so. That information as well as all other information is lost. Zero entropy is zero entropy. Could the spin of a black hole influence structure formation percentages? If so, we would detect a difference around the north and south jets, and I’ve never heard of that.
• Photons : these structures ARE a Noether core (3:3) countra-rotating with an anti-Noether core (3:3) so they balance pro-ness and anti-ness au natural.
• Neutrinos : let’s imagine neutrinos as either a pro or anti-Noether core (3:3) surrounded by a neutral personality layer (3:3). Is the personality layer like a super low energy Noether core? Neutrinos must throw off some interesting electromagnetic radiation, but I have no idea if that is covered by theory or measurement.
• Electrons, Up Quarks, Down Quarks : This is probably a tiny fraction of the point charges in the universe.

Is charge attraction/repulsion the fundamental asymmetry?

Nature is a trickster. It has hidden anti-matter in plain sight.

J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts