From 4ef522eb0146221430b0c43f2107f4a02ed999eb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Loosetooth <loosetooth@protonmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 15:42:26 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] add chapter 11

---
 pages/_meta.json                         |   3 +-
 pages/chapter11-cosmological-aspects.mdx | 468 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 470 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 pages/chapter11-cosmological-aspects.mdx

diff --git a/pages/_meta.json b/pages/_meta.json
index 1f15155..4166679 100644
--- a/pages/_meta.json
+++ b/pages/_meta.json
@@ -15,5 +15,6 @@
   "chapter7-photons": "Chapter 7: Epola Waves and Photons",
   "chapter8-dense-particle-motion": "Chapter 8: Motion of Dense Free Particles in the Epola",
   "chapter9-atomic-bodies-motion": "Chapter 9: Motion of Orbital Electrons, Atoms and Bodies of Atoms in the Epola",
-  "chapter10-wave-propagation": "Chapter 10: Epola Wave Propagation and Interaction with Matter"
+  "chapter10-wave-propagation": "Chapter 10: Epola Wave Propagation and Interaction with Matter",
+  "chapter11-cosmological-aspects": "Chapter 11: Cosmological Aspects of the Epola Structure of Space"
 }
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/pages/chapter11-cosmological-aspects.mdx b/pages/chapter11-cosmological-aspects.mdx
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9d9bf10
--- /dev/null
+++ b/pages/chapter11-cosmological-aspects.mdx
@@ -0,0 +1,468 @@
+
+import { Callout } from '../components/Callout'
+
+<div style={{textAlign: 'center'}}>
+
+# Chapter 11. Cosmological Aspects of the Epola Structure of Space
+
+</div>
+
+
+### 11.1 Non-universality of the vacuum light velocity
+
+In Section 6.5, we calculated the vacuum light velocity $c$, using the formula
+for the velocity $v_d$ of bulk deformation waves in a lattice, $v_d = ({}_b E / m_e)^{1/2}$, and
+assuming that the experimentally-established 1.02 MeV "creation" and "annihilation"
+energy of an electron-positron pair is really the binding energy of the
+pair in the epola (see Chapter 4). Substituting the experimental values of the
+per-particle binding energy ${}_b E = 511 \ \mathrm{keV}$ in the epola, and of the electron (or
+positron) mass $m_e = 9.1 \cdot 10^{-31} \ \mathrm{kg}$, we found $v_d = 300 \ \mathrm{Mm/s} = c$. This result
+should by itself be considered as quite a convincing evidence of the epola
+structure of space and of the substantiality of epola concepts. On the other hand,
+it dismisses the universal constancy of the vacuum light velocity, postulated in
+special relativity (Chapter 2).
+
+Being the velocity of bulk deformation waves in the epola, the vacuum light
+velocity should depend on "local" conditions in the epola, analogously to the
+velocity of sound in tremendously large solid lattices. Such conditions are,
+mainly, the lattice temperature and the concentration and distribution of lattice
+imperfections and impurities. The vacuum velocity of light is certainly a very
+important constant in our epola region. It is constant as far out as the mentioned
+conditions remain stable.
+
+Radiation entering our uniform epola region from regions where it had a
+different velocity, corresponding to conditions in those regions, propagates here
+with velocity $c$, corresponding to conditions in our region. Figuratively,
+radiation does not 'remember' its previous velocities. It always propagates with
+a velocity, corresponding to epola conditions prevalent in the region of passage
+during the time of passage. A simple and very-well-known fact illustrating this
+propterty is that light, which passes deliberately long paths in, e.g., glass or
+water, where its velocity was by 33 or 25% lower than in vacuum (or air),
+emerges into vacuum (or air), having velocity $c$, without carrying any "memory"
+or information about its previous velocity. We therefore conclude that:
+
+> in our region of the epola, electromagnetic radiation propagates with the
+velocity $c$, corresponding to the epola conditions in our region; it always
+reaches our apparata with this velocity, independent of what the velocity is
+(or was) in the epola regions in which the radiation was generated and which
+it had to pass before reaching our region.
+
+The vacuum light velocity $c$, being a constant in our epola region, must not
+be considered as a universal constant. Actually, there is no need for such
+consideration. It was first introduced by Poincaré and used by Einstein to adjust
+to the results of Michelson-Morley's experiment, and to develop a picture of a
+world with an empty vacuum space, without an ether. In the epola model of
+space, the result of Michelson-Morley's experiment is clear by itself and
+obvious. With only a $10^{-15}$-th part of its volume filled by dense particles, the
+Earth in its motion cannot eause winds in the $10^9$-th times denser epola. The
+epola model solves all problems of the propagation of light and motion of bodies
+(Chapter 10) without demanding that physical laws and quantities, established
+and measured in our backyard, must be the same in the whole universe.
+Particularly, the demand of the universal constancy of the vacuum light velocity
+becomes not only superfluous but also wrong.
+
+
+### 11.2 The 3 K microwave radiation as foreground radiation of the surrounding epola
+
+We defined the epola temperature (in Section 5.11) as the mean per-particle
+energy of random vibrations in the epola. With this definition, we then
+interpreted the 'zero point motion' of helium atoms, as depicting the random
+vibrations of electrons and positrons in the epola. In a similar way, the motion of
+Brownian specks depicts the thermal motion of molecules in a gas or liquid.
+With this approach and the experimental values of the zero-point energies
+observed in light atoms, it should be possible to calculate the temperature of the
+epola. Such calculations can be supported by experimental data obtained from
+other "zero-point" effects, e.g., from the "zero-field splitting" of spin energy
+levels, electron and nuclear cooling and a wide variety of experiments
+performed at temperatures close to the absolute zero, where the epola
+temperature is an important factor, tending to raise the temperature (Section
+5.14).
+
+A direct experimental or rather observational approach to determine the
+epola temperature is by using the 'background' radiation spectra. In the search
+of low-energy radiation in astrophysics, carried out with powerful microwave
+telescopes and radiation detectors kept at extremely low temperatures, it was
+found that we are receiving from all directions in the skies a mysterious
+microwave radiation. The spectral distribution of the radiation corresponds to
+the radiation of a blackbody, the temperature of which is about 3 K. The
+theoreticians of the Big Bang creation theory of the universe interpreted the 3 K
+radiation as a leftover from the 'grand explosion', distributed all over the
+universe and appearing as a background radialion behind the observed spectra
+of celestial objects.
+
+With the electron-positron lattice model of space, it is easy to understand
+that the 3 K blackbody radiation cannot be produced by an empty space. It can
+only be emitted by a body, the temperature of which is 3 K. Because there are no
+atomic or molecular bodies besieging us from everywhere, we have to consider
+the epola itself as the source of the 3 K microwave radiation. Our model is
+therefore the following:
+
+> the microwave radiation observed everywhere on the skies, corresponding
+to the thermal radiation of a blackbody at 3 K, is the radiation emitted
+by the electrons and positrons of the surrounding epola, in their random
+vibrations around their lattice sites.
+
+As the radiation of the surrounding epola, this is not a 'background' but a
+'foreground' radiation. With this interpretation, we approach the only reasonable
+result that the temperature of the surrounding epola is 3 K.
+
+
+### 11.3 Temperature effects in the epola
+
+The dependence of the velocity of light on the temperature of the epola may
+be expected to be similar to the temperature dependence of bulk deformation
+waves (or sound) in an unbounded $\mathrm{NaCl}$ crystal or in solid lattices in general. As
+a rule, the velocity of light should therefore be smaller in regions where the
+epola temperature is higher.
+
+The epola temperature is elevated in regions of high electromagnetic
+radiation density and in regions bombarded by high-energy particles originating,
+e.g., from cosmic nuclear reactions. Where the epola temperature becomes
+equal to the binding energy of epola particles, the lattice ceases to exist, i.e., the
+epola 'melts', turning into a liquid of bound $e^- e^+$ pairs. According to the
+formula (see [section 9.6](/chapter9-atomic-bodies-motion#96-velocity-limits-in-the-motion-of-bodies-in-the-epola)),
+
+$$
+E = k \cdot T
+$$
+
+the melting would occur at a temperature T,
+
+$$
+T = \frac{E}{k} = \frac{511 \ \mathrm{keV}}{86 \ \mathrm{\mu eV / K}} = 6 \ \mathrm{GK}
+$$
+
+At even higher temperatures, the epola turns into a gaseous mixture of $e^- e^+$
+pairs and free electrons and positrons. The velocity of light is drastically
+reduced, as is the velocily of sound in gases compared to its velocity in solids.
+Also, the transfer of radiation energy can no longer be described by photons:
+just as there are no phonons in gases, there are no photons in the evaporated
+epola. Therefore, Planck's law, as well as other quantum (or epola) radiation
+laws, do not hold. Such is possibly the situation in certain kinds of black holes
+and other unexplained forms of matter in the universe.
+
+
+### 11.4 Imperfections and impurity effects in the epola
+
+The propagation of electromagnetic radiation should be affected by lattice
+imperfections and impurities in the epola, depending on their kinds, concentrations
+and spatial distribution.
+
+Imperfections are distortions or defects of the epola per se. They include
+unoccupied lattice sites or vacancies, electrons and positrons in interstitial
+positions in the lattice, dislocations, 'grain' and 'twin' boundaries, etc. Such
+distortions can be caused in the vicinity of large masses of atomic or nuclear
+bodies. In the distorted epola layers, the velocity of light must be reduced; the
+more, the closer to the body.
+
+The bending of light beams passing in the vicinity of large masses can be
+explained by the reduction of the velocity of light in the distorted epola layers
+around these bodies. In the epola model, the bending of light, and starlight in
+particular (see Section 2.4) is a phenomenon analogous to the mirage, and its
+mathematical description should be worked out appropriately. With a mirage
+model for the bending of starlight, the mathematical complexity of the problem
+would be greatly reduced.
+
+Impurities are dense particles, i.e., elementary particles and nuclei in the
+epola. We should notice that the electron mass $m_e$ is quite unique among the
+dense particles. Closest to $m_e$, is the mass of an unstable muon, which is 140 $m_e$.
+Therefore, it is hard to imagine that any of the known elementary particles may
+replace an electron or a positron in a lattice-site in the epola, as impurity atoms
+replace host atoms in solids. It might, however, be possible that elementary
+particles with masses close to $m_e$ do exist, but because of the easiness with which
+they may replace electrons and positrons in the epola, they are always 'caught' in
+the epola. Even when freed from the epola to become detectable, such particles
+may have a free lifetime too short to be detected.
+
+High concentrations of impurities in the epola can be caused by elementary
+particles and nuclei, ejected into an epola region by cosmic nuclear reactions.
+Such concentrations may tear the epola apart, creating a kind of a black hole, in
+which quantum or epola radiation laws do not hold.
+
+
+### 11.5 Epola collapse, creation of atomic matter and black holes
+
+A yet stronger effect of nuclear action can cause the epola to collapse locally
+by forcing electrons and positrons to such small distances, at which the
+short-range repulsive interaction (see Section 5.5) is either reduced or
+cancelled. Such local collapse in the epola may initiate the creation of a new
+celestial body. Due to the high density of matter in the epola, the creation of
+atomic matter by epola collapse is possible everywhere 'on premises'. Thus,
+there is no need to collect matter from vast volumes of the universe in order to
+create a shiny celestial body, as it is assumed in existing hypotheses of
+gravitational collapse.
+
+To create a proton (or neutron), the epola collapse has to empty a volume of
+$1840 \, {l_0}^3$ epola unit cubes $(l_0 = 4.4 \ \mathrm{fm} \pm 0.5 \ \mathrm{fm}$
+is the epola lattice constant$)$. This
+would be a sphere of diameter $~15 \, l_0$ or 65 fm, which is 150 times smaller than
+the diameter of the hydrogen atom. The volume of the emptied sphere
+constitutes a $2.7 \cdot 10^{-7}$ part of the atom's volume. To create, e.g., the nucleus of
+the $\mathrm{Cu_{64}}$ isotope, an epola sphere of a $60 \, l_0$ diameter has to collapse. This is still
+80 times smaller than the diameter of the copper atom, and the volume of the
+emptied sphere is only two millionths of the atom's volume. Hence, the creation
+of atomic matter by a local epola collapse would not require to draw-in epola
+particles from distant regions and the regular epola structure in the region of the
+created atomic body would be restored soon.
+
+We come to an opposite conclusion considering the creation of an extended
+body of nuclear matter by an epola collapse. We have seen that a sphere of a 65
+fm diameter has to be emptied for the creation of a proton or neutron. This is 25
+times larger than the diameters of these particles, and the volume of the emptied
+sphere is 16 thousand times larger than their volumes. Obviously then, a large
+epola volume around the nuclear body would have to be emptied. The question
+arises if the epola structure in this volume can be restored, and if so, then how
+long it would take. In the meantime, if not forever, the volume would contain a
+more or less diluted gaseous mixture of electrons. positrons and $e^- e^+$ pairs. This
+discontinuity in the epola would not emit light nor would it enable the transfer of
+radiation energy, as does the epola; hence, it would not be transparent for
+starlight or nebular light.**\*** Obviously, we got another scenario for the creation
+of a black hole.
+
+<Callout type='info'>
+**\*** Analogously, an evacuated volume does not produce sound and does not transduce
+acoustic energy.
+</Callout>
+
+The distortion of the adjacent epola around the black hole could be detected
+as a gravitational distortion, the larger, the larger and emptier the hole. The
+degree of emptiness or blackness of the hole may reveal its age, because with
+passing time, more and more particles are drawn into the hole and it becomes
+less empty, less black. The size of the black hole actually reflects the mass of the
+nuclear body inside it. The body itself is not visible, because there is no epola
+around it to carry radiation. Nor could the mass of the body be detected directly,
+because gravitation is also carried by the epola (Sections 12.1-12.3). Therefore,
+the information about its mass can only be obtained through the apparent mass
+of the black hole, detected via the distortion of the epola around the black hole.
+This mass contains also information on the time passed since the collapse.
+
+
+### 11.6 Explanation of the Hubble redsbift by non-linear light absorption
+
+In Section 2.12, we discussed the Hubble-Humason redshift, observed in the
+spectra of extragalactic nebulae. This redshift is interpreted as a Doppler
+redshift, corresponding to a runaway motion of the nebulae with velocities $v$,
+
+$$
+v = H \cdot l
+$$
+
+where $H = 100 \ \mathrm{(km / s) / Mpc}$ is the Hubble constant.
+
+Our interpretation of the Hubble redshift is based on the only experimental
+or observational, rather, fact that:
+
+> the Hubble redshift or the frequency reduction of the nebular radiation,
+arriving at our apparata, is proportional to the distance from the nebulae.
+
+Therefore, facing such an observation, a physicist is obliged to analyze, first of
+all, those physical factors, which act along the distance from the nebulae, and
+may cause the reduction in frequency. Only if all known physical factors, acting
+along the distance, were to produce effects contradicting the observed results,
+e.g., if they would produce an increase in frequency, then the physicist should
+look for other factors.
+
+The simplest of all factors acting towards a reduction in radiation frequency
+along the path of the radiation, is the non-linear absorption. This phenomenon
+occurs when a wave-motion passes a thick layer of a strongly absorbing medium.
+It results not only in the reduction of the amplitude but also in the reduction of
+frequency. The simplest example of a reduction in amplitude and frequency is in
+the motion of a pendulum in water or oil or honey. A measurable reduction in
+frequency occurs also in long-distance long-wave radio-eommunication on
+Earth (Sections 10.1, 10.2). It can be mathematically derived, when the series
+expansion of the radiation energy is not stopped on the second term but is
+continued to include higher-order terms, bearing the frequency reduction.
+
+Considering the epola as the carrier of the radiation, it is easy to understand
+that:
+
+> the epola is perfectly vacuum-transparent to electromagnetic radiation,
+and on distances of maybe tens or hundreds of light years, even linear
+absorption is hardly detectable; however, radiation approaching us from
+distances which it travels during millions and up to trillions of years, not
+only has its amplitude reduced; it must also show a frequency reduction,
+which is proportional to the traveled distance in the epola.
+
+A similar explanation could be given without the epola concept, while
+continuing to believe that radiation is carried by the empty vacuum, just by
+adding nonlinear absorption to the swollen list of physical properties ascribed to
+the vacuum.
+
+
+### 11.7 Presentation of the Hubble redshift as a gravitational redshift
+
+Another factor reducing radiation frequency along the path of the radiation
+is the gravitational or Einstein redshift, which we discussed in Section 2.10. We
+have seen that radiation passing through a gravitationally distorted region loses
+energy with a reduction in frequency. The gravitational redshift in the spectrum
+of the Sun corresponds to 0.6 km/s of recessional speed and occurs on a distance
+in order of one astronomical unit. Nebular redshifts correspond to anything
+between 40 and 100 km/s of recessional speed along a distance of 
+$1 \ \mathrm{Mpc} = 2.06 \cdot 10^{11}$ astronomical units.
+
+To consider the nebular redshift as gravitational, we should assume that the
+mean gravitational distortion along a megaparsec distance in space, is
+$2.06 \cdot 10^{11} \cdot 0.6 / 100 = 1.2 \cdot 10^9$ times smaller than the mean gravitational distortion
+on the distance from the Sun. In other words,
+
+> if all celestial objects, located in the vicinity of a megaparsec-long path of
+radiation, approaching us from a nebula, create on this path a mean
+gravitational distortion, which is a billion times smaller than the distortion
+in the vicinity of the Sun, then this is already sufficient to consider the
+nebular redshift as gravitational.
+
+In our discussion, we avoided mentioning the epola as the gravitationally
+distorted medium. We did it deliberately, to show that the same explanation
+could be given by believers in the vacuum as the gravitationally distortable
+medium.
+
+
+### 11.8 Non-constancy of the Hubble constant
+
+The apparent runaway velocity of an extragalactic nebula is calculated from
+the observed redshift in the spectrum of the nebula using formulas of the
+Doppler effect. The distance $l$ to the nebula can be approximated from various
+observations and also from the size and type of the nebula. Then, it turns out
+that
+
+> the redshifts in the spectra of nebulae which are equally distant from us are
+not necessarily identical.
+
+Hence, with the formula $v = H \cdot l$ one should either assume that the runaway
+velocities $v$ of these equidistant nebulae are different, or that the Hubble
+constant $H$ is different for them.
+
+Assuming different values of the runaway velocity in different directions at
+a given distance, means trouble to the expanders and exploders of the universe.
+They believe that the universe should expand uniformly in all directions and, if
+not in full spherical symmetry, then at least so, that in directions close to one
+another (within a small solid angle), the blowout should be uniform.
+
+Hence, the constancy of the Hubble constant was sacrificed for the sake of
+keeping the universe exploding. The calculated values of the Hubble constant
+for different nebulae therefore vary from $H = 100 \ \mathrm{km / s \cdot Mpc}$, which is
+the original Hubble-Humason value, down to 70, 50 and even 40 km/s$\cdot$Mpc.
+The published reasons of this non-constancy are mostly mathematical, quite
+speculative and contradicting one another, however publishable.
+
+
+### 11.9 Epola explanation of the non-constancy of the Hubble constant
+
+Our explanation is based on the epola explanation of the redshifts observed
+in the spectra of distant nebulae. These redshifts are caused by at least four
+physical phenomena, and the contributions of each of them to the redshifts of
+different nebulae are different.
+
+The first phenomenon is the non-linear absorption of light, discussed in
+Section 11.6. The frequency reduction due to this absorption should be similar
+in most directions, except for directions in which there are higher-than-usual
+concentrations of absorbing gases or dust. Second is the gravitational redshift,
+discussed in Section 11.7. The frequency reduction due to this redshift should
+have a more profound directional dependence because of the not-so-uniform
+distribution of massive stars. For example, if the radiation from the nebula
+passes between more massive stars than the radiation from another nebula, then
+this other nebula shows a smaller gravitational redshift in its spectrum.
+
+The third factor is the orbit-adjustment redshift (or, seldom, blueshift)
+discussed in Section 9.7. This redshift depends on the speed of the radiating
+atoms of the nebula relative to the epola which surrounds them, and not on the
+directions of their motions. This effect differs in various nebulae, expressing the
+character of motions in the particular nebula and the conditions in the epola in
+and around the nebula.
+
+The fourth factor is the Doppler effect, discussed in Sections 10.10 and
+10.11. Nebulae may move toward us, then the Doppler effect reduces the
+redshift, caused by the other three (or two) factors. When the nebula moves
+away from us, then the redshifts caused by the other three factors are increased
+by the Dopplerian redshift. The redshift caused by absorption and the
+gravitational redshift are proportional to the distance traveled by the nebular
+light. Therefore, they yield a more or less constant calculated value of the
+Hubble constant. However, the orbit-adjustment red- (or blue-) shifts and the
+Doppler red- or blueshifts are not distance-dependent and they are mostly
+responsible for the diverseness of the Hubble-constant values. There certainly
+may be other phenomena affecting the observed redshifts in the nebular spectra.
+However, the mentioned four factors yield a quite complete explanation of
+these redshifts.
+
+
+### 11.10 Dismissal of the Dopplerian interpretation of nebular redshifts and of the Big Bang
+
+The Dopplerian interpretation of the nebular redshift does not follow
+directly from the experimental observation that the nebular redshift is
+proportional to the distance from the nebulae. One may say that it is a 'second
+derivative' of this observation. To introduce this interpretation, one has to,
+firstly, decide that he wants to disregard physical factors acting along the path of
+the radiation. Then, he considers the Doppler effect, which has no connection
+with the proportionality of the observed redshift to the length of the path, but is
+proportional to the speed of recession of the emitting body. Then he speculates,
+that if the emitting nebulae run away from us with a speed which is proportional
+to the distance to them, then the redshift is Dopplerian. We may mention that
+Humason himself was not too orthodox about the Dopplerian interpretation. In
+a paper published two years after the 1929 discovery of the nebular redshift,
+Humason wrote:
+
+> "It is not at all certain that the large redshifts observed in the spectra are to
+be interpreted as a Doppler effect but, for convenience, they are
+interpreted in terms of velocity and referred to as apparent velocities."
+
+The question may be asked why people should prefer such a circling around
+an experimental observation, such a "via dolorosa" of speculations around it,
+instead of considering effects directly connected with the observation. The
+simple answer is that it fits their interests. These could be immediate interests,
+apparent interests or even wrongly-understood interests.
+
+The interest in the Dopplerian interpretation of the nebular redshift is that it
+leads to the hypothesis of a Big Bang-created exploding universe. This
+hypothesis is more exciting than star-war-movies and opens the opportunity to
+everybody with some mathematical skills, an access to advanced computers and
+a creativity of a modern painter to become "creator of universes", as Einstein
+was named to be, to compile new exploding processes for them, to invent new
+exotic particles or introduce more dimensions to the troubled world.
+
+The epola model is very prosaic, introduces or restores strict physical rules
+and eliminates the possibility of star wars and twin brothers traveling between
+galaxies. With the disproval of the Dopplerian interpretation of nebular
+redshifts and the reversal of the 3 K "background" radiation into a "foreground"
+radiation of the epola in front of us (Section 11.2), it turns the Big Bang
+creation hypothesis of the exploding universe into an unnecessary fantasy.
+
+
+### 11.11 Positron lifetime, matter and antimatter in the epola
+
+Positrons observed on Earth have a very short lifetime. However, unlike
+unstable particles, half the number of which decomposes in a lifetime, the
+positron does not decompose; it just combines with a free electron and they both
+enter the bonds in the epola. Then, the charges and masses of both particles
+become individually indetectible, thus 'disappear'. Therefore, the positron is a
+stable particle, apparently just as stable as the electron. The short positron
+lifetime is due to the scarceness of the free positrons and the abundance of free
+electrons on Earth. As a result, a free positron very soon finds a free electron
+with which to enter the epola, while it may take a very long time until a free
+electron finds a free positron. This effect reminds one of the recombination of "free"
+electrons and holes in n-type semiconductors.
+
+Electrons and positrons are therefore 'antiparticles'. Another known pair of
+antiparticles are the proton, $p^+$, and the antiproton, $p^-$, the mass of which is
+equal to the mass of the proton but the charge is the $-e$ charge of an electron.
+The meeting or recombination of a proton-antiproton pair is as many times
+more energetic as their masses exceed the $e^- e^+$ mass; hence, the appearing
+energy is $1838 \cdot 1.02 \ \mathrm{MeV}$. While every atomic nucleus on Earth contains a
+number of protons equal to the atomic (charge) number, the number of
+antiprotons is extremely small. They play no role in the formation of matter on
+Earth. Here, it is very hard for an antiproton to find a positron which it could
+orbitalize and form an 'anti-hydrogen' atom $\mathrm{\bar{H}}$. Such atoms are obtained and
+studied in laboratory conditions but have a very short lifetime, because of the
+scarceness of the positrons and the antiprotons on Earth.
+
+With the study of $\mathrm{\bar{H}}$ atoms in laboratory conditions, the assumed existence of
+anti-matter in the universe obtained strong support. Antimatter is also
+compatible with the epola model. Symmetry considerations suggest that if in our
+region of the epola there is an abundance of free electrons and bound protons,
+then there should be regions with an abundance of free positrons and bound
+anti-protons. Atomic bodies created there would be the anti-matter. Such
+regions would correspond to p-type semiconductors. We could also think of
+epola regions corresponding to intrinsic semiconductors, with equal concentra-
+tions of 'free' electrons and holes. In the corresponding epola region, there
+should be equal numbers of abundant free electrons and positrons and equal
+numbers of protons and antiprotons, bound in their nuclei. In such 'intrinsic'
+epola regions matter and antimatter should coexist in dynamic equilibrium.