On 23 July 2014 12:07, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > Tronnies do not form protons. Tronnies form only entrons (two tronnies), > electrons (three tronnies) and positrons (three tronnies). >
> Protons are comprised of a very high energy electron (comprised of an > electron and a neutrino entron) and two positrons plus about 15 gamma ray > entrons. > > So tronnies *do* form protons - quite a number of tronnies per proton, to be sure. But anyway. > > > Antiprotons are comprised of a very high energy positron (comprised of a > positron and a neutrino entron) and two electrons plus about 15 gamma ray > entrons. > > > > In the beginning there were probably an equal number of protons and > antiprotons. These particles tended to annihilate each other. But if the > proton collected an electron to form a hydrogen atom it was then no longer > attracted to the antiproton. The same applied to the antiproton if it > collected a positron to form an anti-hydrogen atom. Soon however, *purely > by chance*, protons and hydrogen began to outnumber antiprotons and > anti-hydrogen. The more protons and hydrogen that formed as compared to > anti-protons and anti-hydrogen, the more the population of free positrons > was reduced as compared to free electrons. So there were many more free > electrons as compared to free positrons. This meant that neutrino entrons > were more likely to combine with an electron than to combine with a > positron. This lead to a further increase in the number of protons as > compared to antiprotons. But protons continued to annihilate antiprotons > so the population of antiprotons were basically wiped out. All this > probably took a long time. Any anti-hydrogen that formed could exist > unless it and some nearby hydrogen became ionized in which case the protons > would annihilate the anti-protons. > > > > There was a 50-50 chance it could have gone the other way in which case we > would live in an anti-universe made of anti-matter. You and I would be > anti-matter! > OK, but I suspect that your answer begs the question of why the universe isn't composed of "islands" of matter and antimatter, because you would tend to get domains forming of one or the other, almost certainly of a size far smaller than that of the entire visible universe. The characteristic sizes of these would be determined by the average speed with which the matter involved was moving during the big bang (this is similar to the "horizon problem" that inflation is supposed to solve, I think). So if you had a region that happened to become matter, the effect would only spread out to a certain distance in the time available. As you say this would probably take a long time - have you done any calculations of how long it was likely to take, from which I think you should be able to tell how far the effect could spread inside an expanding plasma (are you happy with the current scientific description of the big bang?) I suspect you will get domains of matter and antimatter that are a lot smaller than the observed size of the universe, at least you will unless you invoke something like inflation to spread the random effect out over huge distances. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
