I find there are several points that deserve critical examination, particularly regarding the assumptions about the evolution of particles, the protection mechanisms, and the concept of multiple universes.

1. Matter and Antimatter Asymmetry

You correctly identify that matter and antimatter pairs (such as electrons and positrons) are produced together in reactions like γγ' → p+p-. However, the fundamental asymmetry between matter and antimatter remains one of the most profound mysteries in cosmology, often referred to as "baryogenesis." While you suggest that this asymmetry is a filtering process determined by "protection mechanisms," it may oversimplify the complexity of the matter-antimatter imbalance.

Current models propose that this imbalance likely arises from violations of CP symmetry (Charge conjugation Parity symmetry) during the early moments of the universe, possibly through mechanisms like leptogenesis or baryogenesis. The notion of a "protection mechanism" as you define it may not have robust theoretical backing in particle physics literature. It is more commonly thought that these symmetries were slightly violated in processes involving high-energy particles, leading to a slight excess of matter over antimatter, rather than a protective screening mechanism as you propose.

2. Survival of the Fittest and Protection Mechanisms

The analogy of "survival of the fittest" as applied to particle evolution is interesting but potentially misleading. In biological evolution, "fitness" is determined by environmental pressures and natural selection over time, while in particle physics, the behavior of particles is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics and symmetry-breaking processes, which do not have an analogous "fitness" concept.

The idea of baryons forming protective centers could correspond loosely to the formation of stable bound states like protons and neutrons during baryogenesis. However, the self-annihilation of particles like antiquarks and quarks or the dissolution of unstable baryons isn't necessarily linked to a protective mechanism. Rather, it is a consequence of energy conservation and the natural tendencies of particles to decay into more stable states.

3. Consistency of Natural Laws

The point about the consistency of natural laws and the possible role of neutrinos as dark matter is worth exploring but not definitive. While neutrinos are neutral and interact weakly with matter, making them candidates for dark matter, their mass is incredibly small, and they are not considered massive enough to account for all of the dark matter in the universe. Other candidates, such as Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) or axions, are more heavily favored in ongoing research. The Standard Model does not fully encompass dark matter, and there are ongoing efforts to extend it to account for these mysterious particles.

4. Necessity of Multiple Universes

You argue for the necessity of multiple universes as an explanation for matter-antimatter asymmetry, which could provide an intriguing solution to the fine-tuning problem of our universe. The concept of multiple universes, or the multiverse, has been entertained by some theoretical physicists (e.g., through models like the inflationary multiverse), but it remains speculative and lacks empirical evidence.

While considering the multiverse might resolve certain paradoxes, such as why our universe consists predominantly of matter, it introduces its own set of challenges. These include issues around how such universes interact (if at all), and whether the multiverse hypothesis is testable or falsifiable—a key criterion for scientific theories. The idea of a multiverse cannot yet be confirmed through direct observation or experiment, which makes it a speculative rather than necessary extension of cosmology.

The principles you suggest—survival of the fittest, protection mechanisms, and the necessity of multiple universes—introduce and subsequently rely on analogies that might oversimplify the complex, well-established processes of particle physics and cosmology. The asymmetry between matter and antimatter is likely better explained by existing theories of CP violation, and while the multiverse is an exciting theoretical possibility, it remains speculative in the absence of direct evidence.

It is essential to align these discussions with empirical observations and existing theoretical frameworks, such as the Standard Model and extensions like supersymmetry, rather than introducing mechanisms like "protection" that may not be supported by current physics. Expanding our knowledge of dark matter and improving the precision of cosmological observations might eventually help clarify these issues, but for now, your proposals remain speculative.

Proton-neutron nerve been observed to this date,

What is argument?

Dear Harri Shore

Thank you very much for your detailed, comprehensive and very useful comments.

One point of view in physics that should be consistent with respect to the process of cosmic evolution is that the order of production of elementary particles must be from high energy particles to low energy particles, as determined by the process of release of space-time energy. It can also be added that although these particle energies are discrete, they are actually capable of producing far more variety than what we have discovered so far. Theoretically, they could even have an infinite variety. However, these particles are not stable, they then break down and re-enter the evolutionary process in the form of energy. This process is repeated. During this process, some particles can survive on their own, and some particles must combine together to form composite particles before they can survive. The survival and stability of all particles is a relative concept, and it is reasonable for physics to express it in terms of lifetimes. Some particles have very low stability, such as muons and mesons; others have very high stability, such as electrons and protons. It is this ‘elimination’ (or survival) mechanism that leaves behind what we can currently see.

The results of the so-called ‘protection mechanism’ are shown even if we don't know exactly what it is. For example, uud can form a stable structure, whereas u, d alone cannot. Then the mechanism of forming uud structure itself can be regarded as a ‘protection mechanism’.

Whether neutrinos are dark matter particles or not, even if it is already a certainty, we can still consider that there are not only three generations of neutrinos. There may be N generations undiscovered, with different energies.

The study of the multiverse as a concept is important anyway, because it can get rid of the many limitations of a single universe. The universe is too big, there are always things we can't touch, and it's not a reasonable setup for us to think of them as non-existent.

Yes, they are all speculations, not to speak of arguments.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Preston Guynn and Javad Fardaei

Thank you very much for your corrections, and I apologise for ‘missing’ the important word ‘almost’. The difference in expression that @Preston Guynn emphasises is indeed very important in many ways.

Neutrons and protons are composed of u,d quarks, and according to their masses, d should be formed before u. There must be a very small time delay Δt, which must be smaller than the lifetime of the d quark to ensure that u can meet d. If we can measure their lifetimes accurately, this must be an important reference for studying the rate of evolution of the universe. For the proton (uud) and the neutron (ddu), they should have formed at the same time, perhaps the neutron would have had a slightly earlier chance because it contains more d. Subsequently the proton would have had more chance to form because it contains more u.

Best Regards， Chian Fan

The thread question “【NO.48】Are matter and antimatter particle asymmetries equivalent to positive and negative elementary particle asymmetries?” , and the preface

- looks as is rather vague ones, since most of terms are too vaguely defined. As, say, while there is well observed in physics “matter and antimatter particle asymmetries” some “positive and negative elementary particle asymmetries” look as are superfluous.

What is in the preface, as that is rather rationally considered in Harri Shore post above, relate mostly to really speculative theories in physics, which exist, first of all, because that in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational; and so in every case when the mainstream addresses to any really fundamental problem, then result is completely inevitably is transcendent/mystic something. As, say, the theories in the preface are.

The fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- what allowed to develop really scientifically rational the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, 2 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383127718_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

The model is based on two of really utmost outstanding in XX century von Weizsäcker Fredkin-Toffoli findings/hypotheses, from which it follows that Matter is based on binary reversible logics, while the conception above makes these hypotheses be completely legitimate.

In the model above it is rigorously scientifically rationally, including in complete accordance with all really reliable experimental data, shown that so the Matter’s ultimate base is the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct); FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.

So everything that exists in Matter are specific disturbances in the lattice, which [besides fixed in the space the lattice FLEs, of course] always constantly move at least in the 4D cτXYZ space of the utmost universal “kinematical” [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), where ct is the real time dimension [in mainstream physics Matter’s spacetime is 4D with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z), where really space cτ-dimension is postulated as the time dimension]

- with 4D speeds of light, c, [bold means 4D vector], c= lP/tP.

Particles – and corresponding antiparticles - are some close-loop algorithms that run with frequency ω on “FLE hardware” as sequential cyclic FLE-by-FLE flipping, so at every time instance a particle/antiparticle exists, in first approximation, as “FLE flipping point” that moves along corresponding 4D “helix” line with speed c√2, front of helix moves with the speed c.

Why and how that happens – see at least 2-nd link above,

The post is rather long now, so here only point that both – particles and antiparticles - are created at some impacts on the lattice FLEs, including, and at least mostly, on FLEs that are used in other particles algorithms; at that antiparticles algorithms are identical to corresponding particles algorithms, but run in inverse command orders, that is unique universal difference in this case; and

Cheers

Let’s continue. In the SS post 2 days ago now above it is pointed that the utmost universal matter and antimatter particle [i.e. particles and corresponding antiparticles] asymmetries is in that both types of particles are identical algorithms, which [constantly and always, etc.] run in opposite command orders. Besides, fundamental particles and antiparticles [that, besides, compose other particles] are fermions,

- and so fundamental particles, and so their compositions, are created by 4D momentum impacts on some the FLE-lattice FLE, which [the momentums] have non-zero component in the “Fredkin-Toffoli” space cτ-dimension of Matter’s utmost universal fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct) , which [dimension] allows to do reversive logical operation,

These particles move in the 4D with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) with 4D speeds, c, and, if are at rest in 3DXYZ space, move along cτ-axis; particles with +c, antiparticles with -c, having momentum Pcτ component p0, p0=m0c, m0 is particles inertial “rest mass”

Since the cτ-dimension fundamentally is orthogonal to any 3D XYZ line, after any impacts on a such particle the particle moves also in the 3D space, having speed lesser than c, and 3D momentum, p, however its cτ-component remains be p0, P=p0+p.

That happens quite really objectively, and so, despite that in the mainstream physics the cτ-dimension is postulated as the time dimension, in the QFTs the “Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation”, which really ad hoc postulates that antiparticles move “back in time”, nonetheless really essentially determines adequacy of at least QED to the reality.

Particles that are created by 3DXYZ momentums P, move correspondingly, only in the space, and so don’t use the FLE’s reversive degrease of freedom, so haven’t antiparticles, or “are own antiparticles”. Correspondingly such particles have “true” 3D spin be equal to 1ћ, in contrast to fermions that have “true” 4D spin be equal to 1ћ , but its observable 3D projection has ½ ћ value; now that are known for sure photons.

Thus the particle/antiparticle difference is determined by their algorithm content, where on the algorithm FLE sequence specific particles parameters are written; first of all the algorithms contain sections of FLEs that have marks of fundamental Nature forces, what essentially determine particles’ “Forces charges” , [more see 2-nd SSVT physical model paper linked in SS post above, SS posts in, say, https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO47What_is_Force_a_Field_Where_is_the_Force_Field_How_does_it_appear_Is_the_Force_Field_a_Regulating_Effect_of_the_Energy-Momentum_Field/2 are relevant in this case.]

- and so the particle-antiparticle asymmetry is mostly determined by the Forces asymmetry.

The post is long already, so now

Cheers

Let’s continue. In the couple of SS post above it is explained what are particles and antiparticles; including that the particles that exist as such pairs fundamentally obligatorily have “rest masses”, i.e. can be at rest in 3DXYZ space, moving at that with ± speed of light in the space “Fredkin-Toffoli” cτ-dimension of Matter’s utmost universal fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct) , which [dimension] allows to do reversive logical operation in the so 4D space;

- the antiparticles-algorithms, though are “identical”, but run in opposite command orders, while the algorithms so aren’t symmetrical;

- and the asymmetry is determined, first of all, by that the fundamental Forces marks, which are written in the corresponding FLEs sections of the algorithms, aren’t symmetrical.

At that [more see the initial SS&VT Planck scale models of Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear/rather possibly essentially Strong, Forces in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383127718_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics , section 6 “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems”]

- Gravity is completely symmetrical Force, including so in Matter everything gravitationally attracts practically [i.e. besides Forces mediators] everything;

- Electric Force, as that quite convincingly follows from experiments, is evidently non-symmetrical, and so its marks – and so this Force “charges” have different “± signs”, and it acts as both – attraction and repulsion of interacting particles/charges;

- Nuclear/Strong Force is observable as only attractive, however now it isn’t studied enough for answering – is it symmetrical or not;

- Weak Force,[ as that seems really adequately to the reality follows from the Standard Model “leptonic numbers” conservation law, where the fermions, and so obligatorily having rest mass, “neutrinos” that have only Weak Force charge, can be particles/antiparticles], isn’t symmetrical Force.

However since practically all particles, besides, seems only neutrinos, contain electric charges [either directly or implicitly, as that are neutral hadrons, where sum of quarks charges is zero], have the anti-partners even at least because of Electric Force.

Nonetheless from this can be, and practically for sure is, the fundamental exclusion – particles that have only Gravity Force charge; which with well non-zero probability are observed only on cosmological scale as “dark matter”, matter practically for sure is composed by such particles.

Such particles, despite that have rest masses, can be, in principle all created at impacts on the lattice FLEs by only directed along positive cτ-axis direction momentums, and in this case, if that happened at Matter’s creation [as that is suggested in the SS&VT initial cosmological model, see the link above section 7 “Cosmology”], yet at the creation Matter consisted of only “matter”,

- so if further at these primary particles interactions other particles were created, because of the angular momentum conservation law that were eventually only “particles”, which are observed now; while it would be not too surprised if the DM particles are the primary particles that didn’t interact; composing also essentially, if mostly, central objects of SMBH, again see the section 7.

Thee post is rather long, so now

Cheers