I propose the temperature measurable from within the great void is Unruh radiation.

Suppose the great void is the impression in our space of a BH in antimatter space. For equivalency purposes I would identify the diameter of the gulf as the expression of relative acceleration between an antimatter and matter universe as in reference to the schwarzschild radius. Assume the antimatter BH marked by the great void has a schwarzschild radius similar to the milky ways CMBH, would measuring our CMBH’s radius against the diameter of the great gulf as a relative acceleration equation provide a subsequent Unruh radiation value that approximates the measured temperature?

If anyone can supply the completed equation I am currently attempting to familiarise myself with, I might ‘attempt’ to illustrate how it might be shown that the gulf measured in the CMBH may not be a definable place in our space but is a lensing effect captured because of the telescopes proximity to our galaxies central BH. This lensing effect can only be established by the presence of an antimatter universe. What I suspect has been captured is a picture of the singularity space of our galaxies central feature. The lensing is produced by the acceleration between matter/antimatter universes so I believe the temperature measured in the void is Unruh radiation and therefore measurable against substantial theory.

As a basic model for an equation the measured temperature should provide the unruh radiation value measurable between our central BH and the relative acceleration of it’s mirror in an antimatter universe.

Postpocelipse said:

What I suspect has been captured is a picture of the singularity space of our galaxies central feature.

More accurately, a cross section of the vacuum of antimatter space accelerating away from our universes vacuum space as lensed to the camera by it’s proximity to our central BH.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

What I suspect has been captured is a picture of the singularity space of our galaxies central feature.

More accurately, a cross section of the vacuum of antimatter space accelerating away from our universes vacuum space as lensed to the camera by it’s proximity to our central BH.

Scrub involving schwarzschild radius. Measurement is purely the acceleration between matter and antimatter vacuum, which means don’t involve the breadth of the ‘great gulf’ either.

If the vacuum value of our universe is measured as 0 kelvin the temperature measured in the great gulf should reduce through the the unruh equation to an acceleration value ………..

huh??? wiki has just thrown me off. is the giant void referred to by wiki the same as the large cold spot in the CMBH?

round and round trying to figure out terminology and rah de blah. Don’t mind me. the great void referred to by wiki sounds far more like what may be described as the impression of an antimatter BH on our space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect

The hypothetical Unruh effect (or sometimes Fulling–Davies–Unruh effect) is the prediction that an accelerating observer will observe black-body radiation where an inertial observer would observe none. In other words, the background appears to be warm from an accelerating reference frame; in layman’s terms, a thermometer waved around in empty space, subtracting any other contribution to its temperature, will record a non-zero temperature. The ground state for an inertial observer is seen as in thermodynamic equilibrium with a non-zero temperature by the uniformly accelerated observer.

The Unruh effect was first described by Stephen Fulling in 1973, Paul Davies in 1975 and W. G. Unruh in 1976. It is currently not clear whether the Unruh effect has actually been observed, since the claimed observations are under dispute. There is also some doubt about whether the Unruh effect implies the existence of Unruh radiation.

transition said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect

The hypothetical Unruh effect (or sometimes Fulling–Davies–Unruh effect) is the prediction that an accelerating observer will observe black-body radiation where an inertial observer would observe none. In other words, the background appears to be warm from an accelerating reference frame; in layman’s terms, a thermometer waved around in empty space, subtracting any other contribution to its temperature, will record a non-zero temperature. The ground state for an inertial observer is seen as in thermodynamic equilibrium with a non-zero temperature by the uniformly accelerated observer.

The Unruh effect was first described by Stephen Fulling in 1973, Paul Davies in 1975 and W. G. Unruh in 1976. It is currently not clear whether the Unruh effect has actually been observed, since the claimed observations are under dispute. There is also some doubt about whether the Unruh effect implies the existence of Unruh radiation.

Yeah. If there is relative acceleration between an antimatter and matter universe and you took a picture of the vacuum of one from the other this would count as an Unruh scenario I’m fairly certain. I was earlier reading an article describing a ‘great gulf’ that is 100 billion light years across and contained a temperature so low it is suspected there is no matter there. Go to wiki’s great gulf and there is description of one with measurable matter content albeit with low gravity interaction. It isn’t just me that is a bit muddled I guess….

Postpocelipse said:

I was earlier reading an article describing a ‘great gulf’ that is 100 billion light years across and contained a temperature so low it is suspected there is no matter there. Go to wiki’s great gulf and there is description of one with measurable matter content albeit with low gravity interaction.

I’m after the temperature from the big cold spot in the cosmic microwave background. It isn’t easy to find coherent descriptions of various things through media I’ll have to remember.

> Has Unruh radiation been found?

No.

Wake me up when it has.

mollwollfumble said:

> Has Unruh radiation been found?

No.

Wake me up when it has.

Yeah sorry to unravel the diagrams that construct themself in my head this way Moll. Have a little better idea what I am looking for at this point. Should be able to take that a bit further without positing more outlandish jargon. At this point I have an interim term(vacuum seperation) describing the condition that matter and antimatter universes could exist in the same relative space but because they are approaching each other from extremities of momentum they do not act on each other except in limited ways.

Eureka I’ve got it!

Turns out in comprehending the imaginative diagrams that were constructed by reading other peoples work I was arbitrarily assuming up and down was defined. I’ve redefined down as anything inside the light cone and up as the direction of time/gravitation.

I might get round to simply asking some questions about defining the seperation between an electromagnetic zero vacuum and a vacuum without acceleration.

Postpocelipse said:

Eureka I’ve got it!

I’ve redefined down as anything inside the light cone and up as the direction of time/gravitation.

Sorry that should be, up as anything inside the light cone and down as the direction of time so my I can ask the questions what has up brought me and where is down coming from….

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Eureka I’ve got it!

I’ve redefined down as anything inside the light cone and up as the direction of time/gravitation.

Sorry that should be, up as anything inside the light cone and down as the direction of time so my I can ask the questions what has up brought me and where is down coming from….

it doesn’t matter which way you face it really

Postpocelipse said:

Yeah sorry to unravel the diagrams that construct themself in my head this way Moll. Have a little better idea what I am looking for at this point. Should be able to take that a bit further without positing more outlandish jargon. At this point I have an interim term(vacuum seperation) describing the condition that matter and antimatter universes could exist in the same relative space but because they are approaching each other from extremities of momentum they do not act on each other except in limited ways.

Can you sketch and scan a diagram or two, to give me a better idea. I tend to think geometrically (even if that geometry is extremely weird).

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Yeah sorry to unravel the diagrams that construct themself in my head this way Moll. Have a little better idea what I am looking for at this point. Should be able to take that a bit further without positing more outlandish jargon. At this point I have an interim term(vacuum seperation) describing the condition that matter and antimatter universes could exist in the same relative space but because they are approaching each other from extremities of momentum they do not act on each other except in limited ways.

Can you sketch and scan a diagram or two, to give me a better idea. I tend to think geometrically (even if that geometry is extremely weird).

Thank you very much for asking. Now that I’ve figured out where I’m up to I can start finding the appropriate terms for the things that only have geometric approximation. First I will provide the basic rationalisations that have led me down the antimatter path.

The void exercise I supplied a long time back was both a means to consider conditions between the expansion epoch and the reionization epoch and a means to consider the chirality dynamic. It provided me with a degree of comprehension of particle equivalency and acceleration-relativity dynamics. This exercise left me with a lasting impression that during exponential expansion conditions, a matter/antimatter pair of particles that are accelerating away from each other remain entirely entangled as long as neither particles path is deviated by external intervention and subsequently the momentum either particle carries is entirely corresponsive and no relativity can be resolved till somewhere approaching the reionization epoch. If the path of one particle is deviated by the proximity of another this deviation provides a condition in which an approximation of relativity has been established and acceleration is measured against the path of the non-deviated particle.

That is a whole mouthful to break down further but the result of this analysis led me to the conclusion that the result of deviating the path of only one of the particle path would provide that the deviated particle would have transferred all kinetic momentum to the non-deviated particle and all heat energy would have accumulated with the deviated particle. The result left me to conclude that what started as a proton/antiproton pairing under exponential expansion conditions, with the correct deviation applied, you might end up with a fast moving proton and a very hot anti electron, that particular choice being one of the simpler deviations to define.

From there I figured out that I needed to better comprehend the conventional application and definition of chirality to provide this equivalency analysis with accurate measurement to be compared to. I am only just comprehending what a test of awareness it is to apply yourself to properly defining chirality.

As far as looking for things to measure I believe that matter antimatter fields cannot directly observe the other though there is only a superficial seperation of either space from the other. I have come to the conclusion that the two slit experiment result is an indirect observation of the involvement of antimatter vacuum. I have a suspicion that the big cold spot in the background microwave data is a further indirect observation of antimatter vacuum acting on photons. In this scenario there appears to two basic options, one being that it is lensing captured by the camera’s proximity to a large BH or a definable space within our vacuum that is being acted on by an antimatter BH’s exertion on it’s vacuum confinement.

If you find any of that directable I will attempt to provide diagrams where I can devise a means to.

Defining deviations of particle path under exponentially expanding conditions is very very much like the Fox, Chicken and Bag of Grain crossing a river puzzle.

My dad taught me that trick when I was really young so maybe this is all his fault. :/

Postpocelipse said:

Defining deviations of particle path under exponentially expanding conditions is very very much like the Fox, Chicken and Bag of Grain crossing a river puzzle.

My dad taught me that trick when I was really young so maybe this is all his fault. :/

Was he any good with money?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z1yK96KKoQQ

The equivalency exercise also identifies particles that entered the reionization period without coupling with another to form hydrogen will have been distributed in the future. ie, where as the light cone of emitted particles originates from the past, if you took a picture solely of the ionized protons and electrons that are considered primordial you would be getting a snapshot of the path that is ahead of the light cone.

I think that is the maths I have been trying to figure out that has been confusing my understanding of chirality so I won’t try to over explain any of it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Defining deviations of particle path under exponentially expanding conditions is very very much like the Fox, Chicken and Bag of Grain crossing a river puzzle.

My dad taught me that trick when I was really young so maybe this is all his fault. :/

Was he any good with money?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z1yK96KKoQQ

bwa ha, aha hah ha.

ok duuh. My embarrassing habit of an equivalency exercise is a study of chirality and equivalency distribution. Think I’ll have to finish it start to finish to cure myself of mental disorder. Shouldn’t take long.

so it goes exponential expansion disrupts with an electron/positron coupling. Dilation limit expressed.

Exponential pause as electron and positron act on each other and deviate toward each other to annihilate.

Expansion engages annihilation path of electron/positron, produces proton/antiproton pairing, vacuum depth expressed. Particle paths unimpeded.

Electron/positron pair production cascades into the light cones of the receding proton/antiproton.

Pairs produced closest to cascaded dilation resolve as high mass producing annihilation cascade that expresses the maximal diameter of the light cone.

Pairs produced further up the chain interact with the annihilation shock wave absorbing heat…..

… ok.

stabilisation of electron and proton cascades provides electromagnetic coupling to the universe.

stabilisation of the hydrogen cascade that marks the stabilisation of the electromegnetic cascades requires the stabilisation of a helium cascade to define the vacuum of space which provides the conditions for gravitation.

stabilisation of vacuum also requires that cascades occur ahead of the light cone of a stable hydrogen cascade. The area a light cone expands into should contain particles up to helium for the integrity of the vacuum within the light cone. Stabilisation of a stable electron/hydrogen light cone demands that it’s opposite positron cascades are also stablised. I can only assume that what seperates these is a spectral cascade of universes. It is this last that leads me to believe that an antimatter universe should be measurable from with our light cone.

I assume this last quantifies as DM and provides a summation of investigation and observation as advertised by the group of universities that investigate such guff. I might also have to assume that this model has been intentionally implanted in my head as hypnotic suggestion by the presentation of the material. Failing to have taken the time to sit down and describe this model until this point in time has caused me considerable distraction and heartache. I believe I may investigate a considerable civil lawsuit against the group of universities that prepare the material I have digested in order to be hypnotically fixated with their intentional presentation of it in a manner that forced one to think about it during periods of high stress circumstance strongly effecting the readers ability to functionally address the source of referenced high stress circumstances.

seriously, if the volume of “standardised” material presented wasn’t intentionally presented as incomplete and requiring resolution it would not have been the last resort my head would go to in these periods of high stress circumstance I refer to. If the presenters of the material I have been exposed to have intentionally excluded from the public that they have known what DM is and how gravity operates on localising vacuum then they should just get out their checkbook now. If they don’t, after I beat them in court I’ll take the money somewhere private and build a light-saber and go looking for the University heads that avoided settling.

Maybe I can go back to work and actually cope with my injuries manageably now that I’ve at least sketched out what I suspect is an intentional hypnotically implanted suggestion.

Postpocelipse said:

so it goes exponential expansion disrupts with an electron/positron coupling. Dilation limit expressed.

Exponential pause as electron and positron act on each other and deviate toward each other to annihilate.

Expansion engages annihilation path of electron/positron, produces proton/antiproton pairing, vacuum depth expressed. Particle paths unimpeded.

Electron/positron pair production cascades into the light cones of the receding proton/antiproton.

Pairs produced closest to cascaded dilation resolve as high mass producing annihilation cascade that expresses the maximal diameter of the light cone.

Pairs produced further up the chain interact with the annihilation shock wave absorbing heat…..

… ok.

stabilisation of electron and proton cascades provides electromagnetic coupling to the universe.

stabilisation of the hydrogen cascade that marks the stabilisation of the electromegnetic cascades requires the stabilisation of a helium cascade to define the vacuum of space which provides the conditions for gravitation.

stabilisation of vacuum also requires that cascades occur ahead of the light cone of a stable hydrogen cascade. The area a light cone expands into should contain particles up to helium for the integrity of the vacuum within the light cone. Stabilisation of a stable electron/hydrogen light cone demands that it’s opposite positron cascades are also stablised. I can only assume that what seperates these is a spectral cascade of universes. It is this last that leads me to believe that an antimatter universe should be measurable from with our light cone.

I assume cascades up to helium must be produced ahead of the light cone which begins at the stabilisation of hydrogen to seal the vacuum that defines the dynamics of gravity. This I believe has been measured and advertised as DM.

So either the heads of physics departments intentionally withhold the fact they understand entirely how gravity works and that it requires what we measure as DM to work or I’ve just provided a coherent model of particle pair cascade resolution that can be shown to provide a definable theory of gravity that destines me for Nobel fame. I’m the first in the history of relativity that has thought about figuring out how to provide and resolve a particle pairing into a cascade that stabilises as an EM light cone which does not resolve till it’s vacuum potential is set by the cascades of hydrogen and helium that enter the budding EM light cones path to provide it vacuum and gravitation? “We haven’t got a theory of gravity” isn’t an intentional subterfuge? Doubt it.

I can just see it…

*Prospective Physics PhD*_’scuse me professor, I realize it is preferred that a thesis be prepared on something Physics related other than a “theory of gravity” but…._

Physics Head cascade resolution, light cone, vacuum cone,,,, handful of other words??? about summarise it?

PP PhD …. errr,, as a matter of fact yes they would

Physics Head fair enough. You go through that door and you’ll still have to come up with another thesis.

PP PhD !!! err,, ok….. exit’s through door

Next PP PhD in line Yes nice to see you professor. I realise that it is untoward but I genuinely feel obliged to enter a thesis on gravity???

Physics Head… (with a “two in one day??” cocked eyebrow) .. Would summarising it in a short paragraph require the inclusion in that paragraph of the term cascade resolution, light cone and vacuum resolution-H/h???

NXT PP PhD … light cone, certainly and vacuum obviously must be referenced. If your reference to ‘cascade resolution’ requires your presentation have significant math content then I am not sure one paragraph would be sufficient….aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah his scream echoes as he drops down the hole beneath the trapdoor that just opened beneath his feet

Physics Head (absent-midedly) Always a waste when they just don’t get it……… Next..

Prospective PhD _ Sir I have been considering entering a thesis that studies hydrodynamics._

Physics Head Really?? Have you focused on a specific area or does it simply appeal to you?………

I think it is very unlikely that you have discovered a theory of everything. Just sayin’.

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think it is very unlikely that you have discovered a theory of everything. Just sayin’.

I didn’t refer to any TOE. What I have outlined extends as far as gravity. I also would point out that I don’t believe I have ‘discovered’ anything but have been guided by what ‘standard theory’ composers have supplied to have to believe that around Einstein’s time they went looking for DM after applying a study of infinite divisables and cascade resolution to provide a theory gravity that required little more than familiarity with the material of SR and GR and a strong head for contemplating infinites. They have only publicised what they went looking for after they found it for security purposes and as a means to discern the suitability of prospective students of physics. This subterfuge has interfered driven me to distraction with a personal light cone that has left me with enough distraction as it is.

I’m suing…….

Postpocelipse said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think it is very unlikely that you have discovered a theory of everything. Just sayin’.

I didn’t refer to any TOE. What I have outlined extends as far as gravity. I also would point out that I don’t believe I have ‘discovered’ anything but have been guided by what ‘standard theory’ composers have supplied since around Einstein’s time after they went looking for DM after applying a study of infinite divisables and cascade resolution to provide a theory of gravity that required little more than familiarity with the material of SR and GR and a strong head for contemplating infinites. They have only publicised what they went looking for after they found it for security purposes and as a means to discern the suitability of prospective students of physics. This subterfuge has driven me to distraction with a personal light cone that has left me with enough distraction as it is.

I’m suing…….

fixed

yeah I’ve got a TOE. A Theory Of Exactly how smug physics professors must be being part of a secret society!!!!!

secret? it is a society open to anyone prepared to do the work.

Are you a in on this MollWollfumble?

Is it worth reading the whole thread to see what the shitfight is all about?

no. there is no shitfight just postie talking to himself. mainly.

JudgeMental said:

secret? it is a society open to anyone prepared to do the work.

what don’t you get? They’ve had a theory of gravity which they have hidden as they went looking for what it predicts and have never had any intention of divulging they had done so because of security and the fact that it provides a good test of awareness for any prospective physics PhD prospective. As I said I’m suing because this practice has put the answer to what they ‘have” divulged in my head in a distracting manner that has forced me to figure out what they figured out and what they have been up to since.

I am claiming a crime has been perpetrated on a global scale. This could lead to a class action regarding disclosure.

party_pants said:

Is it worth reading the whole thread to see what the shitfight is all about?

only really the bit since Moll said he is good with diagrams and I should try to pass on any diagrams I might have constructed in my head. I hadn’t thought about completing the equivelancy exercise I began describing a while back because trying to explain where I had got to in it just made for confusion and disruption at the time so I put it to the back of my mind and studied the things Moll, KJW, PM and co have prompted me to get my head around better. I’m a victim of deception and high-horsery at least I’m pretty sure.

Starting to read like loony tunes.

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

Is it worth reading the whole thread to see what the shitfight is all about?

only really the bit since Moll said he is good with diagrams and I should try to pass on any diagrams I might have constructed in my head. I hadn’t thought about completing the equivelancy exercise I began describing a while back because trying to explain where I had got to in it just made for confusion and disruption at the time so I put it to the back of my mind and studied the things Moll, KJW, PM and co have prompted me to get my head around better. I’m a victim of deception and high-horsery at least I’m pretty sure.

I just accept with good grace that I’m too fucking stupid to understand fundamental physics.

If I don’t get a knock on the door with a settlement offer(probably proffered from the glove of a man with a smoke obscured face) I’m going to post a new thread that removes any shorthand type referencing and elucidates a clear cascade resolution exercise that provides a theory of gravity with the observation and material they had available since Einstein. Physics students have a fair environment to mentally cope with finding out something like this. For someone getting along outside of the tertiary environment I say I’ve been hypnotically interfered with.

party_pants said:

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

Is it worth reading the whole thread to see what the shitfight is all about?

only really the bit since Moll said he is good with diagrams and I should try to pass on any diagrams I might have constructed in my head. I hadn’t thought about completing the equivelancy exercise I began describing a while back because trying to explain where I had got to in it just made for confusion and disruption at the time so I put it to the back of my mind and studied the things Moll, KJW, PM and co have prompted me to get my head around better. I’m a victim of deception and high-horsery at least I’m pretty sure.

I just accept with good grace that I’m too fucking stupid to understand fundamental physics.

Yes I understand. They would be relying on people who couldn’t grasp it easily to look for something else to study before turning up and offering a thesis on a theory that has already been resolved.

I just accept with good grace that I’m too fucking stupid to understand fundamental physics.

it isn’t fundamental and it isn’t physics.

JudgeMental said:

I just accept with good grace that I’m too fucking stupid to understand fundamental physics.

it isn’t fundamental and it isn’t physics.

I can only assume you are in on it. What have they promised you? A condo on Mars with work for your descendants??

I can just see it….

Newly inaugurated Obama So… Security Briefing. What is……. behind the….. ah… “One Way Veil”.. that….. ah… brought down the Iron Curtain…. waits as inevitable humor applause subsides

CIA Head _ Well Sir… to provide our current security condition a common origin I will initially disclose that the Manhattan Project not only provided nuclear weapon technology but was a substantial step in proving what was then the newly defined theory of gravity. Since then……._ blah blah blah

Obama Oh Shit

> This exercise left me with a lasting impression that during exponential expansion conditions, a matter/antimatter pair of particles that are accelerating away from each other

There’s a slight problem here. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^−33 and 10^−32 seconds.

The first matter and antimatter particles didn’t exist then, being only created … I need to think here … During the inflationary period and up until 10^-12 seconds the electron and positron were different but there was no difference between a positron and a proton, or between an electron and an antiproton, so there was no absolute distinction between matter and antimatter. It wouldn’t be too wrong to say that the proton evolved from the positron 10^12 seconds after the start of the universe, well after the end of the period of exponential expansion, and this could be called the origin of antimatter as we know it.

mollwollfumble said:

> This exercise left me with a lasting impression that during exponential expansion conditions, a matter/antimatter pair of particles that are accelerating away from each other

There’s a slight problem here. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^−33 and 10^−32 seconds.

The first matter and antimatter particles didn’t exist then, being only created … I need to think here … During the inflationary period and up until 10^-12 seconds the electron and positron were different but there was no difference between a positron and a proton, or between an electron and an antiproton, so there was no absolute distinction between matter and antimatter. It wouldn’t be too wrong to say that the proton evolved from the positron 10^12 seconds after the start of the universe, well after the end of the period of exponential expansion, and this could be called the origin of antimatter as we know it.

I have modelled stable cascade as what has provided disruption to our observation of expansion. Once fully illustrated the basic sequence I supplied to the light cone/vaccum cone thread establishes that either universe continues to accelerate away from the other in space but the cascade distribution that created a centre of momentum establishes that they are essentially directed toward each other in time providing a superposition of space between the two. To provide some dimension to this one could establish that a measurable distance between the vacuum of an antimatter universe to our observable vacuum might be as little as the diameter of a helium atom. I must develop the model further to assess whether this requires a cascade of universes in multitude spectra to remain seperated indefinitely or whether momentum limits are reached and collapse is inevitable. My math is far from efficient with that task.

Expansion should not have ceased but must only have been limited from observation for stable cascade to proliferate. Stable cascade requires that annihilation paths establish stable cascade paths. For centre of momentum this needs be a cooperation between opposing chirality. I have minimally described the vacuum cone that develops as the space either light cone is expanding into. I have not established whether it contains a limit of travel or whether it simply directs the expansion of either.

Upshot, gravity is defined by the vacuum seperation between a stable hydrogen and helium cascade in both a matter and antimatter universe. There must be both to provide either. I can consider the model that was churning my brain matter externalised and can concentrate more efficiently on getting on with life. Now that I have defined the geometry of the model I don’t need to continue the newer thread but if you want a description of a vacuum cone let me know.

mollwollfumble said:

> This exercise left me with a lasting impression that during exponential expansion conditions, a matter/antimatter pair of particles that are accelerating away from each other

There’s a slight problem here. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^−33 and 10^−32 seconds.

The first matter and antimatter particles didn’t exist then, being only created … I need to think here … During the inflationary period and up until 10^-12 seconds the electron and positron were different but there was no difference between a positron and a proton, or between an electron and an antiproton, so there was no absolute distinction between matter and antimatter. It wouldn’t be too wrong to say that the proton evolved from the positron 10^12 seconds after the start of the universe, well after the end of the period of exponential expansion, and this could be called the origin of antimatter as we know it.

I believe you have pointed out that I simply have to provide the value from electron/positron annihilation path to stable helium as a planck moment. This I would then have to provide as the expansion rate of the light cone. I guess that leaves the question how does standard theory derive a planck moment and light cone expansion rate?

Postpocelipse said:

I guess that leaves the question how does standard theory derive a planck moment and light cone expansion rate?

Sorry scratch that. I just have to go to the planck BB timeline to get what I need there. Bit obvious.

Thanks for your patience Moll. I know where to start and where to finish with figuring out what is presented with standard theory mathematically. I’ll consider this episode over if people have no further purpose to reference it. I will amuse myself with a thread on the possibilities within the mechanics of the light saber concept and satisfy curiosity with some questions about helium in another. I’ll try not to irritate anyone.