granpa

by that time they were already separated.

gravitational time dilation would also cause light to bend (refract) around massive objects.

the energy density at that time was so great that matter and antimatter were being continually created and destroyed. it would attract both. but the mass to charge ratio is different for protons and electrons. protons would win out.

escape what? you mean as the protons and antiprotons try to separate the charge buildup should have stopped it? why would the charge buildup stop the protons. why not just attract electrons to balance the charge. its easier to attract electrons than to repel the protons. the charge buildup probably slowed it down but I see no reason to think it would stop it. the back button can sometimes retrieve lost messages.

I dont follow. ionization does not equal annihilation. why would simply ionizing a cloud of matter result in annihilation? you need matter and antimatter together in one place to get annihilation. I was citing this: Results 1 - 10 of about 44,700 for cmbr transparent. (0.23 seconds) Search Results 1. CMBR What are we looking at when we look at the CMBR? We see the Universe when it first became transparent to light perhaps you should explain what you meant by this. did you mean repelled by the negative ones? I suppose neutrons would be the first to separate. then protons would follow. as charge built up electrons would be electrically attracted to the protons.

I said it was emitted after the universe cooled enough to become transparent. it clearly states as much several times right on the google search results page.

????

yes. I assume that T=3000 k has some meaning to you that you think that I should understand.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&hs=nPW&q=cmbr+transparent&btnG=Search

that comes from after the universe became transparent.

not if it all took place early enough. before the universe became transparent. yes. its fascinating.

ionized or not it was neutral when averaged over any but the tiniest distances. I'm not trying to prove anything. its a hypothesis. the proof will come later when they measure the gravitational effect on antimatter directly and when they observe the center of this or some other galaxy with sufficient resolution.

isnt the process of induction identical to error correction (computer science)? what conditions have to be met to make it possible to transmit a message over a noisy channel without any loss of data? those who arent familiar with error correction should look up 'multidimensional parity". thats the easiest one to understand. what I said earlier about questioning your assumptions (that led to your new data) whenever you get new data comes from error correction.

besides all the reasons given here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9412234 because it is the simplest explanation for the supposed matter antimatter imbalance which woud otherwise require new and bizzare physics. what could be simpler than 'there is no imbalance'? it does mean that energy isnt conserved but that in turn explains where all the matter/energy of the big bang came from. and gravity becomes exactly like the electric force having 2 charges. the only difference being the direction of the resulting force. again, what could be simpler? now I'm sure this wont convince you and you will have some response ready for this and I'm sure we could go on like this forever. so unless you have something truely though provoking to say then I have nothing more to say.

the only assumption I made in producing this theory was the assumption that the simplest explanation for the big bang and for the (supposed) matter antimatter imbalance was probably right. everything else was inferred. you can call the idea that antimatter falls upward an assumption since we dont really know but then you have to call the idea that it falls downward an assumption too.

deleted

it predicts that dents wil be found in the manifold probably containing the burnt out remains of supermassive stars. these stars were the first to form. globular clusters probably formed around them so we should have a pretty good idea of how many to look for. (obviously the clusters eventually moved away from the dents but the central star would still be there) it also predicts that these might be found: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=453726&postcount=3 it might also explain the lack of smoothness of the cmb. what does string theory predict?

my speculation makes the testable prediction that antimatter wall fall upwards.

a hypothesis is something you believe may be true. a theory is something you believe is true. but seriously, the key idea here is 'consistency'. internal consistency and consistency with empirically observed data. that seems to me to be the basis of 'inductive reasoning'. you test an idea by seeing if it 'fits' everything else that you believe. you first start with a set of assumptions. then you test each assumption against everything else you know. then based on the outcome you make a set of corrections . the biggest error people make is that they forget that when you get new data you have to go back and retest each of the assumptions that were made originally that led to the new data. you cont just assume that because the old assumptions led to the new data that the new data must support the old assumptions. in doing so people unthinkingly carry false assumptions to ridiculous lengths.

it clearly states: In theory, antimatter dropped over the surface of the Earth should fall down. However, the issue has never been successfully experimentally tested. The theoretical grounds for expecting antimatter to fall down are very strong, so virtually all physicists expect antimatter to fall down -- however, some physicists believe that antimatter might fall down with a different acceleration than that of ordinary matter. Since this has never been experimentally tested, it's important to keep an open mind... So what we would really like to have is a laboratory experiment where we simply drop some antimatter in a lab, and see how fast it falls. This has not yet been done... Most people expect that antiatoms will fall down. But it is important to keep an open mind -- we have never directly observed the effect of gravity on antiparticles on Earth. This experiment, if successful, will definitely be "one for the textbooks." we wont know till the actual experiment is done. this is speculation. my speculation makes the testable prediction that antimatter wall fall upwards. speculations policy: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=59&a=13 http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9412234

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/antimatter_fall.html

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35850&highlight=antimatter+gravity

and obviously it would do away with the matter antimatter asymmetry since they would exist in equal amounts in the universe. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36878 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36881 http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36879

sorry. I've editted the original post. it now reads: 1. matter and antimatter gravitationally repel

If we suppose that 1. matter and antimatter gravitationally repel 2. gravitational time dilation is proportional to the intensity of the gravitational field (i.e. an event horizon never forms) 3. gravitational collapse to denser and denser states of matter continues almost indefinitely. (i.e. a singularity never forms) 3. the universe began with a single star that was so big that pair production was occurring in its core. As the neutral antimatter in the star made its way to the surface and was expelled the pressure at the center of the star would increase. This would cause more gravitational collapse which would create more energy which would produce still more antimatter. This would result in a runaway vicious circle as the star expelled billions of galaxies worth of neutral antimatter. It would only stop when it finally underwent some kind of big bang. edit:Could the universe have begun with a single particle? if in addition to baryons (lets call them class 1 particles) and leptons (lets call them class 2 particles) there are also higher classes of particles (class 3, 4 , 5...) each with less mass and larger size (some might be as big as planets or even bigger) than the class below it then its conceivable that the universe may have begun with a single huge class X particle that was unstable and collapsed and began spewing out class X-1 particles. Later its core would collapse and it would spew out class X-2 particles. Still later its core would collapse again and it would spew out class X-3 particles. This would continue till eventually it destroyed itself in a big bang. if there are class 0, -1, -2... particles then they might constitute the manifold that resulted from the big bang that forms our 3D universe. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34107-manifoldslong-range-forces of course, matter and antimatter repelling gravitationally would also explain (or rather do away with) the matter antimatter asymmetry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter#Motivations_for_antigravity http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9412/9412234v1.pdf http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/antimatter_fall.html I think its important to point out that light would still be bent by gravity due to the gravitational time dilation. Energy would have inertial mass but could not have any gravitational mass. The equivalence principle would be explained by: F2=-G*Mg1Mi2 / r2 F2=Mi2a2 which gives a2=-G*Mg1 / r2 (acceleration of Mass2 is independent of the mass of Mass2 regardless of whether Mi2 = Mg2) If Mi2 and Mg2 differed by only a very small amount (for instance by the binding energy of the nucleus) then how would we know? F1 would not be equal to F2 but the net force would be so small that i can see no way of testing it. Life in the universe: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34380-interstellar-dust-grainsliving-molecules/page__view__findpost__p__439137 Pre-space existence: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34418-existence-without-space/page__view__findpost__p__439686