[puppypower]

I do not even know where to start with the errors. But since I have previously addressed most of them here and elsewhere, I am not even going to bother. But I will say that making up your own terms to replace standard terms is not conducive to meaningful discourse

Nobody has been able to answer certain questions using the standard terms. These terms appear to be too limited to get the job done. We need to expand on them.

[Bored chemist]

These terms appear to be too limited to get the job done.

It appears that way to you; because you have't taken the trouble to find out what they mean.

[puppypower]

The topic is why is there more matter than anti-matter in the universe? There is not a consensus answer since the status quo does not have the proper conceptual foundation. We can observe and prove more matter is the case, but why is not easy to answer with the existing conceptual framework. We need to think outside the box imposed by that conceptual foundation.

Mathematics is also not the answer, since math is like a good horse, who will go wherever you lead it. Once it knows its way, it can go on its own and appear to lead. The problem is, as computer game engines show, math will also follow the lead of fantasy frameworks, allowing game physics to go beyond reality. Math will faithfully follow the lead set by any conceptual framework. Math is very useful if the framework is solid, but it can create false positives if it is not.

The answer to this topic question appears, at least to me, to have something in common with the question, why do we also have a quantum universe? We can also prove this is the case, but why this is the case, has not been answered properly, due to the limits of the conceptual foundation that is currently chosen. Correlating observation is not the same as answering why!

Up to the discovery of the quantum universe, science assumed that the universe was defined by continuous functions. In early science, there were no gaps between distinct packets and states defined by quantum theory. Conceptually, the change into quantum theory, away from continuos models, limited the options and therefore saved time. It is similar to going from a raw photographic image to a jpeg image. The jpegs uses less memory and can be processed faster.

Becoming a quantum universe made things less complex, due to fewer possible and distinct states.  Based on  fewer states, the needed processing steps could occur faster, thereby saving time. Fewer states, by being less complex means the quantum universe, lowered entropy, while saving time. While things happening faster, means time speeds up, analogous to when the universe starts to expand. Expansion also speeds up time. These are all connected. 

If we go from matter and anti-matter to just matter, we will also lower the options and thereby lowering entropy into a less complex state. The lowering of entropy will release energy, and create a potential that we call the second law. The change to the quantum universe further speeds this up, by further limiting options, thereby further reducing entropy, for further release of energy and the speeding up of time; expansion. Inflation was lowering entropy to just mass, and the quantum choice further lowered entropy for the expansion. Both speeded up time.

In the living state, proteins in the lab will form equal parts of  left and right handed helixes. These look equal and opposite, atom by atom, and both appear in equal qualities, as expected based on statistics and reasonable assumptions.

However, life only uses left handed protein, with right handed protein not found to be bioactive, even though the atom count makes them equal and opposite. Equal and opposite appears to also mean active and not active. Matter and antimatter also appear equal and opposite and the choice of matter would not have been made by nature, if it was the active twin. The difference may not be connected to differences in internal energy.  The difference appears to be connected to entropic potential and time. Left handed helixes, compared to right handed, save time in terms of evolution and lead to ever increasing complexity; to satisfy their higher entropic potential.

[Malamute Lover]

The topic is why is there more matter than anti-matter in the universe? There is not a consensus answer since the status quo does not have the proper conceptual foundation. We can observe and prove more matter is the case, but why is not easy to answer with the existing conceptual framework. We need to think outside the box imposed by that conceptual foundation.

Mathematics is also not the answer, since math is like a good horse, who will go wherever you lead it. Once it knows its way, it can go on its own and appear to lead. The problem is, as computer game engines show, math will also follow the lead of fantasy frameworks, allowing game physics to go beyond reality. Math will faithfully follow the lead set by any conceptual framework. Math is very useful if the framework is solid, but it can create false positives if it is not.

Mathematics is essential in determining if a proposed solution makes sense. If the math inherent in the solution fails, the proposed solution is wrong. Math that explains a physical circumstance may lead to other discoveries, such as antimatter being implied by the Dirac equations or E=mc^2 falling out of the formalism of Special Relativity.

BTW the term ‘false positive’ refers to data, not to the math.

The answer to this topic question appears, at least to me, to have something in common with the question, why do we also have a quantum universe? We can also prove this is the case, but why this is the case, has not been answered properly, due to the limits of the conceptual foundation that is currently chosen. Correlating observation is not the same as answering why!

Up to the discovery of the quantum universe, science assumed that the universe was defined by continuous functions. In early science, there were no gaps between distinct packets and states defined by quantum theory. Conceptually, the change into quantum theory, away from continuos models, limited the options and therefore saved time. It is similar to going from a raw photographic image to a jpeg image. The jpegs uses less memory and can be processed faster.

You are again using a phrase without understanding its meaning. Quantum field theory uses continuous functions, which do not undergo instantaneous changes at particular values. Discontinuous functions introduce serious problems, like the introduction of infinities into physical quantities. Dealing with quantized values is really no more discontinuous than dealing with integers.

Becoming a quantum universe made things less complex, due to fewer possible and distinct states.  Based on  fewer states, the needed processing steps could occur faster, thereby saving time. Fewer states, by being less complex means the quantum universe, lowered entropy, while saving time. While things happening faster, means time speeds up, analogous to when the universe starts to expand. Expansion also speeds up time. These are all connected. 

A continuum universe (note: different word) would be much simpler in the sense of the rules required. Newtonian mechanics, or a relativized version of it, would be sufficient. In QT, there is mass/energy interchange, virtual effects including self-virtualization, probability amplitudes and uncertainty considerations. Far more complicated.

If we go from matter and anti-matter to just matter, we will also lower the options and thereby lowering entropy into a less complex state. The lowering of entropy will release energy, and create a potential that we call the second law. The change to the quantum universe further speeds this up, by further limiting options, thereby further reducing entropy, for further release of energy and the speeding up of time; expansion. Inflation was lowering entropy to just mass, and the quantum choice further lowered entropy for the expansion. Both speeded up time.

The option for anti-matter is still there as can be seen in collider events. If anti-matter were impossible that would answer the question.  But it is not, it shows up in equal proportions in colliders. Your ‘simpler’ proposal does not work.

And as usual, your entropy discussions do not make sense. Entropy in SLOT concerns statistical predictions. It is not a potential. It is not a force. It is not a thing. Your other comments do not make sense either. Learn some physics so you can use terms according to their meanings and not just string buzzwords together haphazardly.

In the living state, proteins in the lab will form equal parts of  left and right handed helixes. These look equal and opposite, atom by atom, and both appear in equal qualities, as expected based on statistics and reasonable assumptions.

However, life only uses left handed protein, with right handed protein not found to be bioactive, even though the atom count makes them equal and opposite. Equal and opposite appears to also mean active and not active. Matter and antimatter also appear equal and opposite and the choice of matter would not have been made by nature, if it was the active twin. The difference may not be connected to differences in internal energy.  The difference appears to be connected to entropic potential and time. Left handed helixes, compared to right handed, save time in terms of evolution and lead to ever increasing complexity; to satisfy their higher entropic potential.
[/quote]

The ability to process both enantiomers of sugar would require two sets of enzymes, that much more difficult to evolve. If a food source has one type, you need to have a matching enzyme. D-sugar forms a more stable ring. D-sugar and the enzyme to process it won out. Evolution in action.

The bias toward D-sugar may have started with meteorites.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/meteorite-compounds-hint-at-origins-of-lifes-asymmetry-/1010379.article

Left-handed amino acids (protein builders, not proteins themselves) also have greater survival potential. Right-handed amino acids are more easily degraded by the polarized light that receives its orientation from the galactic magnetic field.

The bias toward L-amino acids may also have started in space.
https://theconversation.com/why-is-life-left-handed-the-answer-is-in-the-stars-44862

See also:
https://medium.com/a-spoonful-of-sugar/biological-homochirality-one-of-lifes-greatest-mysteries-2031f4700c4b