Okay hear me out.I'm sure you're all NOT retarded and have heard of the electroweak nuclear force since you're browsing /sci/, and possibly you know a thing or two about the fact that we live in a "right-handed" chirality universe, where electrons dominate over positrons, and so we call the force we harness, based on electrons, "electricity", because of how English etymology works ("elec" + tron, "elec" + tricity).Does that mean if we lived in the Evil Kirk universe where everything is antimatter instead, and thus "left-handed" chirality instead, we'd be harnessing positrons instead? And if so, then instead of calling it "electricity" would we call it... like, "positivity"? Or, "positricity"?... lol
>>16860542That’s not why electricity is called that, midwit.Electra is amber.
>>16860542No we'd probably still call it electricity.
>>16860542> know a thing or two about the fact that we live in a "right-handed" chirality universe, where electrons dominate over positronsI gotta stop you there kid. The situation is a bit more complicated than this. Matter and antimatter can have either chirality (70% right and 30% left, for instance) but only the right hand component of matter (switch it for antimatter) feels the weak force.
>>16860542>Evil Kirk universe
>>16860542Chirality has nothing to do with antimatter One thing is having everything being made out of antimatter opposed to our normal matterOther thing is chirality. Our biological molecules are not symmetrical. Chirality is their mirror copy which looks the same but behaves different.Technically it could be possible to have antimatter that is also chiral
>>16860542Anon, it's just a convenient mathematical nomenclature for describing reactions, don't read too much into literal interpretations.
>>16860542>fact that we live in a "right-handed" chirality universeHow do we know this? Maybe our local galactic group is matter dominant and everything else is antimatter? Would we even be able to tell from telescopes and other observations? Also, why do they call the antimatter version of an electron a positron but they don't call the antimatter version of a proton something like a negatron? They just call it an antiproton which is inconsistent with the antimatter electron naming convention.
>>16862907>Maybe our local galactic group is matter dominant and everything else is antimatter?This is plausible under the hypersphere projection models of Unzicker, Pletchard and O'Neill.But again, it is confusing, but don't mix up chirality and antimatter. A particle has both left and right chiralities at the same time, as i understand it. Antimatter can have the same. So when they say the weak force only interacts with righthanded matter. They mean it is only interacting with the righthand component of the matter particle and is blind to the lefthanded component? Does this make sense to you?As for your question about the proton, ironically the proton is the positively charged counterpart of the negatively charged electron in the nucleus, which is also where we find the neutron.
>>16863618I have to read more about the hypersphere projection models and chirality of particles. I heard about chirality of particles for the first time when Weinstein was trying to do a gotcha on Sean Carroll. My point was that maybe the cosmological principle doesn't hold and that all space/time is not homogenous. Maybe it's matter dominant in our part of the universe but go further and it's antimatter dominant. Maybe go even further and everything is all hot plasma. I suppose we'll never find out because of the Hubble radius and all.
>>16864057>maybe it's all hot plasmaAre you referring to the plasma universe theory by any chance? I don't know much about it but it seems interesting. Makes more sense than the "electric universe" theory at least, as in, it's not a pseudoscience, just something that hasn't been experimentally proven and would require overhauling a lot of instutitionalized beliefs about cosmology (which will probably never happen).
>>16864057>hypersphere projection modelsAlexander Unzicker: Why Space and Time Are an Illusion - The Mathematical Reality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxAV_Re4OWAArthur Pletcherhttps://www.qeios.com/read/2X1GDL.6C.C. O'Neill: Anamorphic Perspective Cosmology Galactic Distance Measurementshttps://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32264.12808
>>16860542https://www.positrondynamics.com/W- Bosons are way cooler though
>>16864057G and C aren't constants. Problematic I know. The gravitational constant is still a fiasco to this day but they manage to bury C in circular definitions. Look into how the Gravitational constant was averaged out, I mean agreed on, I mean defined by the BIPM >>16864317The one thing I have to commend the electric universe people on is their approach to scalar phenomena as regulated by some scalar theories. They have also paved the way for credibility to theories that explain phenomena that aren't an excrement of standard model.
>>16862907>How do we know this? Maybe our local galactic group is matter dominant and everything else is antimatter?Because the volume between galaxies isn't really empty, there is the intergalactic medium. If there was a transition from matter to anti-matter, there would be an interface with loads of annihilation gamma rays produced. People have looked for such regions, and found nothing.
>>16864317Plasma cosmology is long dead. Even when it was alive it was riddled with problems trying to explain the basic properties of the universe. It couldn't really explain the homogeneous structure and expansion of the universe, which is now confirmed on larger scales. >>16865490>The one thing I have to commend the electric universe people on is their approach to scalar phenomena as regulated by some scalar theories. They have also paved the way for credibility to theories that explain phenomena that aren't an excrement of standard model.I think you've been smoking crack. There is no electric universe model. All it consists of are some vague claims spread over hundreds of hours of empty youtube videos. It has no mathematical modeling, or anything that can really be called a physical cosmology. It is pseudoscientific waffle.
>>16865490And look how it appears if you plot all the available data, and use the correct dates of when the actual experiment was done. This weakens the evidence for variation.Then when you account for the fact that a model with more parameters (the oscillation frequency, phase and amplitude) will fit data better, the improvement is not significant over Gaussian noise.And if this variation were real, it would be detectable in the orbits of planets and satellites. It isn't.https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.01774https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06725https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.07233
>>16867152>>16865490And here is the plot of a sequence of experiments by one lab, which doesn't show the claimed variation at all. It demonstrates also that the scatter in the data is not caused by violent oscillations, but by systematic errors.
>>16867135Maybe it happens outside of our light cone. Our observable universe is a diameter of 97 Billion light years. How do we know weird shit doesn't happen just outside of that? Gamma rays produced then a transition to antimatter galaxies and after that maybe something even weirder that doesn't fit in with either matter or antimatter? How did they come up with the cosmological principle? It doesn't seem like they used scientific methods to come up with it.
>>16867469>Maybe it happens outside of our light cone. Our observable universe is a diameter of 97 Billion light years. How do we know weird shit doesn't happen just outside of that?The point of having regions of anti-matter is to explain the asymmetry in our local environment. If you put those regions beyond the observable universe then they are causally disconnected. It would not explain why our observable universe is matter. It's pointless to invoke regions beyond the horizon scale. You still need some particle physics explanation for the matter-anti-matter asymmetry. >How did they come up with the cosmological principle?It's a reasonable assumption, one which has been tested extensively using observations. People have studied cosmological models which are not homogeneous or isotropic, but they don't align with observations.
>>16867153>>16867152>It doesn't vary, it's just systematic errors after extreme data cullingLOL>>16867139I know plasma cosmology is long dead in your book--that doesn't make it wrong that just means people who get paid to preach it is wrong keep their jobs.>Vague claims spread over a hundred yearsLol, you just described standard model, unironically. Tell me more about dark matter and dark energy bro, and tell the line again how standard model is totally unified because magic matter makes it real.
>>16868515>It doesn't vary, it's just systematic errors after extreme data cullingThe plot you showed was flat out wrong, and picked the data they like. Without that it is not convincing at all. >that doesn't make it wrongIt would have to be modified extensively to bring it into line with even basic observations. As it was proposed it is dead. It's also missing it's special ingredient, in that it assumed the universe was half anti-matter, and yet there is no evidence of such regions. >Lol, you just described standard model, unironically. Nope. The standard cosmological model (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) is defined in any cosmology textbook. From that and the Friedmann equations and gravity, anyone can calculate predictions of standard cosmology. That means it is quantifiable, testable and even falsifiable. There are also dozens of simulations out there, to be publicly scrutinised by all and compared to the real universe. It is not vague at all.Not knowing what dark matter is exactly does not affect the model. Dark energy is the cosmological constant in standard cosmology, so not really undefined at all. Can you say the same for the electric universe? No, because it's not scientific at all.
