The apparent excess of matter over antimatter in the observable universe is one of the deepest unresolved problems in physics. Standard approaches invoke CP-violation mechanisms and the Sakharov conditions to generate a matter surplus from a symmetric initial state. This paper develops a Quantum-Geometry Dynamics (QGD) account that dissolves the asymmetry geometrically, requiring no such mechanisms, no CP-violation parameters, and no departure from standard deterministic preonic dynamics. Building on the structural definition of an antiparticle as a mirror-image p-gravity equilibrium configuration, and the transverse-deflection mechanism of electromagnetic polarisation, this paper demonstrates that the apparent matter-antimatter asymmetry is a visibility asymmetry, not a count excess. Core Structural Derivations: The Polarisation "Dead Zone": The electromagnetic polarisation field is intrinsically anisotropic, vanishing along the spin axis: Πa(ψ) = Πmax · sin(ψ). The Partial-Merger Bifurcation: For particle-antiparticle pairs approaching within this polar dead zone (ψ < ψc), electromagnetic attraction is insufficient to drive the pair to the minimum volume threshold. The approach is p-gravity-dominated, allowing the polar preon(+) core to satisfy the binding condition and form a stable partial-merger composite, while the equatorial sub-population dissolves into photons. The 1/ma² Scaling Law: The fraction of encounters producing stable composites scales strictly as 1/ma², making heavy composite formation structurally inevitable in the early universe. Nucleon-Sequestered Antimatter: The stable composites formed by polar encounters of heavy pairs are sequestered as electromagnetically neutral or weakly polarising sub-structures within nucleons. This framework maps these sequestered antiparticle-type sub-structures directly onto the "sea quarks" observed in Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS), providing a deterministic geometric origin for the composition of the nucleon sea and a structural explanation for the Gottfried sum rule violation.
Daniel Burnstein (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: