Heya!🫡
Did a quick glance over the introduction and felt confident I could present a reasonably coherent assembly of considerations(that perhaps the more mathematically/experimentally inclined could articulate for-or-against, as my own searching thus far hasn't fully solidified either way yet, but seems promising thus far) that should be testable.

I know that there were already plenty of suggestions about an "antiverse" existence in many hypothetical/theory circles to explain the ratio of "matter to anti-matter" in our universe, and I welcome consideration/experimental evidence for-or-against it. But I've always felt this was only scratching the surface. When the Higgs Boson was finally found, landing upon neither of the prevailing theories squarely, super symmetry and Multiverse theory, there was understandably confusion. I wasn't extremely invested at the time (but it was nagging at me significantly), but I began learning shortly after this was discovered. After several efforts to quantify how it could be calculated to this outcome, I decided that it's possible the higgs boson lands where it does because both had aspects correct and we were dealing with a combination of super symmetry and multiverse, favoring super symmetry. I imagine I am far from the first to suggest this, but what would this look like in practice? I imagine others (with more experience than me) could articulate several possibilities, and I'd love to hear more about them if you happen to know of them. At the time, my searches weren't providing much to chew on.

To simplify and expand on the theory for the moment, I'm jumping to some generalizations I had realize/emerge along the way, but happy to provide more specifics to explain it(or have you demolish it with the rigor deserved of your station~😉) to any who wish to explore it more specifically.

On a personal note, I find interpreting Noether's Theorem as an axiomatic consideration when exploring theoretical ideas exceedingly useful, as I suspect many would agree, to first ponder the nature of reality in the context of "energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely change form." When we consider the nature of matter-antimatter annihilation, and experimentation having shown that anti-protons appear to respond to gravity and other forces just as normal protons do, the same could be said (at least with some measure of confidence) of gravitational disturbances, ionization, molecularization, and momentum. This suggests that the energy released in the first moments of the big bang absolutely could have "launched/polarized" the matter of our universe on it's own temporal vector through ionization, pushing off of our antimatter "twin" (a birth twin, not some 'mirrorverse' twin) which began traveling in the opposing temporal direction. BUT something about this didn't sit right with me. Trying to codify CPT and what we should expect to see happen with antimatter once we contained it, but would normally possess a "reverse reference frame?" I didn't like it. But I got stuck so I left it for those with more resources than I did. Then I'd heard about "Dark matter" and "Dark energy" at first dismissing it (thinking, like some, it could be attributable to intergalactic dust clouds AND asymmetrical interspatial time dilation, which the latter seems to have been given more validity lately, but worth consideration~) before hearing the complete ratios and something clicked. Pi. It was back to nagging at me, so I went back to trying to make sense of it.

Consider the possibility that there was EVEN MORE matter and antimatter present at the moment of the big bang, perhaps resultant matter that would have satisfied some of the conditions of super symmetry. If it wasn't all annihilated, where did it go? If we could sufficiently interfere/interact with the CPT of a sufficiently sized system and distort local spacetime, I suspect we would find not one, alternate (non-antimatter) universe, but two. Our sibling universes being launched along a "similar" temporal vector yet spatially independent. This suggested that our sibling universes likely had a similar, if not offset, CPT asymmetry. Not to mention their own antimatter twins which shared an opposing temporal vector. The ratio of 3.14, when paired with antimatter twins, (total of 6 universes, 3 matter, 3 anti-matter, with occasional "semi-stable" latent spaces between them) provided a surprisingly close Higgs variant, though anchored slightly by the considerations of Tau stability still suggesting higher order super-symmetry could explain some of the missing bits(assuming I've understood what I gleaned about it). When considered, the mass ratio calculated astronomically implies that we're having some of their intergalactic formations impressing upon our spacetime, explaining the partially chaotic (and asymmetrical) distortions. And I suspect, upon visiting them, they likely would be experiencing the same (roughly 60%+) gravitational pressure, being exerted by us and the other sibling.

SO what does this have to do with antimatter behavior? As I understood when reading about it, we currently resort to creating a high energy soup with an electromagnetic anti-proton trap. It often takes a while, but eventually some form. When paired with a positron, it seemingly behaves just like a hydrogen atom. But several times, there have been instances where the anti-atoms were "lost" despite no detection of annihilation. Most chalked it up to mechanical/sensor error, but I propose that anti-matter can, under the right conditions, pass backwards through time according to our reference frame. It might be worth screening the results of a few of those tests where there seemed to be "two atoms" but they both vanished, as this could have been an instance of observing existence in both forward and reverse reference frames of time traversal by the same atom, perhaps accidentally 'nudged' through electromagnetic manipulation? In tests, they are able to contain it briefly, manipulate it, move it around with EMfields, etc. But I suspect if they wish to generate MORE antimatter for longer periods of storage and study, they would benefit from considering more rigorous methodology that encourages "creating AND destroying" the antimatter in the same way, so that temporal cohesion from its creation in hot soup (in what would be our future) to it's eventual annihilation in hot soup (in what would be our present) would greatly increases it's yield by encouraging a more stable temporal "through line." As when I went exploring "instant resolution/collapse" of quantum incursions-interactions that could create these spontaneous generations of anti-protons(Feynman diagram-esque), my findings reflected those that were found by those researchers using the quantum computer bits to experimentally replicate "altering history" temporally just a couple years later. "Mother nature herself fights to prevent paradox." This could explain why some runs simply cannot produce anything despite "ideal conditions" as this was something I'd heard they were struggling with at the time.

And what does THAT mean for time travel? (Bare with me, it's fairly straightforward.) It's akin to what I'm sure others have attempted to articulate, that it can only successfully occur if it does not cause any paradox. Otherwise, in order to traverse in that way, being a lightly bound quantum system yourself(which is the only way I've managed to make time travel work thus far, though I've been itching to work with someone who works with wormholes to see if I could broaden my understanding of certain thresholds regarding "FTL" traversal of space with forms of toroidal space curvature which still confuse me), you are completely at the mercy of "mother nature." The uncertainty principle is both friend and enemy. One way to visualize it that seemed to help a couple folks is "You're an explosion in the forest." Now, lets assume you want to teleport to a different place in the forest (go back in time). Your arrival creates a second explosion at the same moment. Now, you can't stop being the energy/teleportation that made these explosions (and finish arriving safely at your intended destination) until your potential from these explosions putters out and you can "cool down." So, if the shockwave of either of the explosions reaches either of your selves, you'll be affected. How will you be affected exactly? Best quote I've uncovered so far is from Rick and Morty, "Scattered to the quantum f*cking winds." It depends. So the smart move is to ensure that you distance yourself from that explosion, right? Put a couple trees between you and the, eh, "other you." But that likely means not arriving anywhere with any significant impact on your own frame of reference unless you were really rigorous about "What when how" etc. that ultimately couldn't tamper with your own experience, but it'd still be wildly risky(and in my opinion irresponsible and simply safer to consider impossible). This doesn't guarantee you'd vaporize on the event horizon, but you're not likely to end up at your intended destination(time OR place)... or be fully functional(amnesia, injury... spontaneous combustion?) etc. etc.

Anyway, I figure I've rambled on enough, I'd appreciate any feedback/questions to specifically point out the sections you're commenting/inquiring about using quotations so I can follow your reasoning-specific context if not addressing the whole. I apologize in advance if I have missed including something important, I'm admittedly exhausted but felt this was important enough to try and share/explore as it has been nagging at me for a while. If this "MAFASON theory" resembles/mimics another theory, happy to hear about it, this is kinda my first foray into an actual public forum on this and it'd be worth knowing additional reference material moving forward. I'm open to any questions(including how this framework might explain anything I've yet to cover, or how I explain/reconcile experimental data that seems to(or simply does) counter the theory in some fashion). Looking forward to any reply. Either way, if you've read this far, I thank you for your time. 👍

5 hours ago, Taiconan said:

When the Higgs Boson was finally found, landing upon neither of the prevailing theories squarely, super symmetry and Multiverse theory

The Higgs was predicted in the standard model, which is the prevailing theory. Supersymmetry theories look for things beyond the standard model. Multiverse is more of a conjecture. I wasn’t aware either made a Higgs prediction, given that the standard model exists. Do you have references that say otherwise?

Supersymmetry predicts the Higgsino, the fermion partner to the Higgs boson, which has not been found.

On 6/23/2025 at 6:42 AM, swansont said:

The Higgs was predicted in the standard model, which is the prevailing theory. Supersymmetry theories look for things beyond the standard model. Multiverse is more of a conjecture. I wasn’t aware either made a Higgs prediction, given that the standard model exists. Do you have references that say otherwise?

Supersymmetry predicts the Higgsino, the fermion partner to the Higgs boson, which has not been found.

Valid questions. And you're correct that the Higgs did have some predictions in the standard model, though prior to the official 125GeV, upper and lower 'bounds' would have been more precise. Yes, when I was delving into these, particularly following the initial announcements regarding the Higgs, the two "closest" contenders in these frameworks(conjectures) at the time were a version of Supersymmetry that had predicted an 'ideal' Higgs of around 115 (120 at most if you were willing to push some limits/odds without breaking them). Meanwhile the nearest Multiverse prediction that had any semblance of stability (despite anthropic basis) landed closer to 140 or 141. It’s worth noting that theoretical papers around Multiverse had explored a range of “preferred” masses: with some that listed several possible anthropic values. (That's just off the top of my head, I'd likely have to do some digging to recover who specifically posited those). This was how I'd started down this road, exploring the possibility that perhaps each had aspects that were correct. Of course, I now know about the fragility/intrigue of that specific energy level when using purely Standard Model calculations too.
(For any unaware, the Higgs Boson being specifically 125GeV poses an interesting revelation under the standard model as well. It implies that our electroweak vacuum is metastable. According to plain SM calculations, with the measured top quark mass, the Higgs potential might eventually (at extremely high energy scales) transition to a lower vacuum state. One of those "isn’t happening anytime soon" timescales. Far longer than the age of the universe. But it’s always struck me as curious that 125 GeV is just right in that narrow window between absolute stability and rapid instability of the vacuum.)
Anyways, more to the point, if a Lagrangian might help illustrate my assertion, I do have an old image of a draft that I'm fairly confident is correct but ultimately have never submitted. I'll screenshot the relevant section.



I'm quite dyslexic you see, which (despite being told I've an "impressive knack for math")makes me exceedingly prone to error in writing out the result if the problem exceeds around 20 variables in length, despite many of my "initial impressions/calculations" typically being correct. (I absolutely hated writing in pen in school. And being graded down despite having the right answer, but marked off on writing out the steps in "long division." Bleh.) I can usually catch these mistakes, but the more in depth the problem, the more pronounced it gets (likely because I'm focusing on the problem and not what my hand is spontaneously deciding to present out of order🙄😏)

Anyways, enough about me. I realize I also failed to mention the natural rotation of the sibling structures, but that seems less important than clarifying other elements. Did that answer your question, Mister Swansont?

5 hours ago, Taiconan said:

Valid questions. And you're correct that the Higgs did have some predictions in the standard model, though prior to the official 125GeV, upper and lower 'bounds' would have been more precise.

I didn’t say anything about predicting the mass; AFAICT this was a free parameter, though knowing some information did then allow for some predictions, and others based on some assumptions. I was referring to the existence of the particle/field.

5 hours ago, Taiconan said:

Yes, when I was delving into these, particularly following the initial announcements regarding the Higgs, the two "closest" contenders in these frameworks(conjectures) at the time were a version of Supersymmetry that had predicted an 'ideal' Higgs of around 115 (120 at most if you were willing to push some limits/odds without breaking them). Meanwhile the nearest Multiverse prediction that had any semblance of stability (despite anthropic basis) landed closer to 140 or 141. It’s worth noting that theoretical papers around Multiverse had explored a range of “preferred” masses: with some that listed several possible anthropic values. (That's just off the top of my head, I'd likely have to do some digging to recover who specifically posited those). This was how I'd started down this road, exploring the possibility that perhaps each had aspects that were correct. Of course, I now know about the fragility/intrigue of that specific energy level when using purely Standard Model calculations too.

Again, I was referring to the prediction of the existence of the Higgs, not the mass.

On 6/29/2025 at 6:52 AM, swansont said:

I didn’t say anything about predicting the mass; AFAICT this was a free parameter, though knowing some information did then allow for some predictions, and others based on some assumptions. I was referring to the existence of the particle/field.

Again, I was referring to the prediction of the existence of the Higgs, not the mass.

Ah! My mistake, I presumed that was what you were referring to, given that I'd provided their predicted values. Yes, I'd agree then, SM likely provided the basis for the initial conceptual nature of the Higgs.

Ah, a friend of mine just brought this to my attention. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Pvo3AaAwU
A video posted yesterday regarding galactic formations and how they might imply our existence is "within a black hole" (which I posit is currently less relevant than establishing an actionable framework, but) which is worth considering. In relevance to my earlier comment. "I realize I also failed to mention the natural rotation of the sibling structures"
This would appear to follow/compliment my conjecture. Recent measurements by the JWT have highlighted that galactic structures have a favored axis of rotation, roughly 2/3rds of the observable favoring one and only 1/3rd the other. Still well within a statistical possibility of "random chance" but the similar value and parallels to my conjecture strike me as noteworthy. 🤔

But, could be I've missed something important and it's all wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. 🤷🥴