GeneralDadmission Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Professor Barbour of Oxford supports the theory that an antimatter universe is travelling away from ours in time. I think that should be phrased as 'away from each others space' because time is a construction of momentum. For me this provides a model in which antimatter filaments are intertwined with our galactic filaments but cannot be directly observed because of the uniform acceleration between the two. I would illustrate what I would consider dilation disparity between the two by proposing that the conditions measured in the great voids in the interstellar medium may be the closest to a white hole that the relativity of a duel matter/antimatter universe would allow. If an antimatter universe is travelling in precisely the opposite direction to ours these void areas might be considered space that an antimatter galaxy is travelling most directly toward. Does anyone here have insight into the plausibility of a matter/antimatter universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Professor Barbour of Oxford supports the theory that an antimatter universe is travelling away from ours in time. Annihilation between electrons and their antimatter particles positrons is quite significant portion (4%) of our Sun released energy per second.. You should learn first how antimatter particles can be created. Edited January 30, 2015 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Professor Barbour of Oxford supports the theory that an antimatter universe is travelling away from ours in time. Do you have a reference for this? I don't really understand what it means. Does he present any evidence for this idea? I think that should be phrased as 'away from each others space' because time is a construction of momentum. Well, no. Time is one of the dimensions of space-time (the clue is in the name ). For me this provides a model in which antimatter filaments are intertwined with our galactic filaments but cannot be directly observed because of the uniform acceleration between the two. They would annihilate, producing distinctive radiation (which is being actively looked for). Acceleration would no prevent this. I would illustrate what I would consider dilation disparity between the two by proposing that the conditions measured in the great voids in the interstellar medium may be the closest to a white hole that the relativity of a duel matter/antimatter universe would allow. A void is nothing like a white hole (it is more like nothing). If an antimatter universe is travelling in precisely the opposite direction to ours these void areas might be considered space that an antimatter galaxy is travelling most directly toward. How can our universe be travelling throuigh space when it is space. Does anyone here have insight into the plausibility of a matter/antimatter universe? There is no evidence for it. Surprisingly large amounts (i.e. minute amounts) have been found, for example in our galaxy, but there is no evidence that there is a similar amount as there is matter. Edited January 30, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 Annihilation between electrons and their antimatter particles positrons is quite significant portion (4%) of our Sun released energy per second.. I believe the premise is that particle pair production during BB expansion results in (possibly semi)permanently seperated spaces. Subsequent particle pair production within either space is subject to annihilation but the original constituents are unable to act on each other being seperated by momentum in the form of spatial expansion. I believe the premise is that particle pair production during BB expansion results in (possibly semi)permanently seperated spaces. Subsequent particle pair production within either space is subject to annihilation but the original constituents are unable to act on each other being seperated by momentum in the form of spatial expansion. Do you have a reference for this? I don't really understand what it means. Does he present any evidence for this idea? here.... http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9812021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 here.... http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9812021 I don't know enough to comment on that. But I wouldn't put too much faith in one unpublished (as far as I can tell) paper. BTW: this is a slightly better link: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9812021v2 But that isn't by Barbour, so ... I believe the premise is that particle pair production during BB expansion results in (possibly semi)permanently seperated spaces. Subsequent particle pair production within either space is subject to annihilation but the original constituents are unable to act on each other being seperated by momentum in the form of spatial expansion. That doesn't sound anything like what is in that paper (which takes the time-reversal symmetry of antimatter as real). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 A void is nothing like a white hole (it is more like nothing). The conditions measurable in voids of minimal radiation and gravitation may be the provision of gravitational lensing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) The conditions measurable in voids of minimal radiation and gravitation may be the provision of gravitational lensing. Sorry, I can't understand that. Voids don't cause gravitational lensing, mass does. And that still has nothing to do with white holes (which, if they existed, would be spewing out matter and energy). Edited January 30, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 (which takes the time-reversal symmetry of antimatter as real). That's why I am showing alternative methods of creation of antimatter (positrons) which is happening on daily basis during fusion, and beta decay plus.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 That's why I am showing alternative methods of creation of antimatter (positrons) which is happening on daily basis during fusion, and beta decay plus.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission I see what you mean: because we observe (and use) antimatter all the time, it can't be travelling backwards in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 .. That doesn't sound anything like what is in that paper (which takes the time-reversal symmetry of antimatter as real). The paper allows that time symmetry is relative to the origin of a particles momentum. Sorry, I can't understand that. Voids don't cause gravitational lensing, mass does. And that still has nothing to do with white holes (which, if they existed, would be spewing out matter and energy). If the voids we observe can be considered points that our matter is gravitating away from they would also represent positions that antimatter is gravitating toward. Ones origin becomes the other's destination and vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 The paper allows that time symmetry is relative to the origin of a particles momentum. Does it? Where does it say that? If the voids we observe can be considered points that our matter is gravitating away from they would also represent positions that antimatter is gravitating toward. Ones origin becomes the other's destination and vice versa. That doesn't make any sense (I mean, literally, I cannot extract any meaning from it): what does "gravitating away from" mean? Voids are not points. They are (very) large areas of (relatively) empty space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 Does it? Where does it say that? That doesn't make any sense (I mean, literally, I cannot extract any meaning from it): what does "gravitating away from" mean? Voids are not points. They are (very) large areas of (relatively) empty space. That also is relative. What was the size of a void during the expansion epoch? If heat death is the fate of the universe what will the size of these voids be relative to at that time? I have approached from my own line of contemplation which only draws on the content of the paper. I will have to digest the content of the paper to a fuller extent to provide greater clarification. This paper provides context but I will attempt to locate an entry by Prof. Barbours associates and address questions in reference to material contained in these. That may be more direct than attempting to analyse voids against vague suppsoitions. http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9812021 The conditions measurable in voids of minimal radiation and gravitation may be the provision of gravitational lensing. I wasn't stating a void is a white hole. Only that it might be the closest physics provides to such a state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I wasn't stating a void is a white hole. Only that it might be the closest physics provides to such a state. That is like saying that the colour purple is the closest thing to a race horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 ! Moderator Note OK, I thought this was going to be a quick review, but it looks like this is now firmly a non-mainstream speculation. Since we can't leave this in the mainstream fora where students might mistake it for test answers, let's head on over to the Speculations section. GeneralDadmission, please read the special rules we have for it. Thanks for understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 That is like saying that the colour purple is the closest thing to a race horse. Possibly referencing the content of the paper in discussion of the subject would make greater progress than assessing imperfect analogies I have constructed in the attempt to illustrate what I understand of the content. I will address any further questions I find as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Possibly referencing the content of the paper in discussion of the subject would make greater progress than assessing imperfect analogies I have constructed in the attempt to illustrate what I understand of the content. I will address any further questions I find as such. What does the paper say about voids and white holes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 This paper is highly misleading on the nature of antimatter and time reversal symmetry. The only difference between antimatter and matter is the charge. In the metrics ONLY antimatter charge can be formulated as time reversal symmetry. This However does not mean antimatter moves backwards in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 This paper is highly misleading on the nature of antimatter and time reversal symmetry. The only difference between antimatter and matter is the charge. In the metrics ONLY antimatter charge can be formulated as time reversal symmetry. This However does not mean antimatter moves backwards in time. If you had read it accurately it doesn't claim that. What does the paper say about voids and white holes? The paper refers to gravitational lensing. I have only confused the question by analogising it against white holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 If you had read it accurately it doesn't claim that. That is exactly what it says: "antimatter is identical to matter but moves backward in time. This paper argues that this interpretation is physically real" I have only confused the question by analogising it against white holes. Indeed. You have introduced all sorts of things which have nothing to do with the content of the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 That is exactly what it says: "antimatter is identical to matter but moves backward in time. This paper argues that this interpretation is physically real" Indeed. You have introduced all sorts of things which have nothing to do with the content of the paper. I will be specific rather than analogous in future. The description you have quoted is analogous where as the content of the paper addresses specifics. A more accurate definition of the content is that space is moving in opposite directions with a common centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) I think you better read the paper again. By the way I have read this material before. " by Trevor Pitts Abstract: If space, time and mass-energy expand outward from the Big Bang along the time axis equally in the (+) and (-) directions, then time is symmetric by Weyl's definition. In the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation, antimatter is identical to matter but moves backward in time. This paper argues that this interpretation is physically real, leading to the universe containing dark matter with mass accumulations similar to ordinary matte. As time expands, in both directions away from the origin, quantum uncertainty allows a brief, decreasing leakage of mass between (+) and (-) universes. Matter leaking from (-) to (+) time moves forward in time, producing preponderance of matter in (+) time. Antimatter leakage from (+) time to (-) time in the same way produces antimatter preponderance in the (-) time universe" The first three sentences should clue you in lol. Now read pages 74 to 76 of this article. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics Edited January 31, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted January 31, 2015 Author Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) I think you better read the paper again. By the way I have read this material before. " by Trevor Pitts Abstract: If space, time and mass-energy expand outward from the Big Bang along the time axis equally in the (+) and (-) directions, then time is symmetric by Weyl's definition. In the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation, antimatter is identical to matter but moves backward in time. This paper argues that this interpretation is physically real, leading to the universe containing dark matter with mass accumulations similar to ordinary matte. As time expands, in both directions away from the origin, quantum uncertainty allows a brief, decreasing leakage of mass between (+) and (-) universes. Matter leaking from (-) to (+) time moves forward in time, producing preponderance of matter in (+) time. Antimatter leakage from (+) time to (-) time in the same way produces antimatter preponderance in the (-) time universe" The first three sentences should clue you in lol. Now read pages 74 to 76 of this article. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics I have read the paper. I don't have a problem with the description. The question is better discussed by entirely eliminating a value for time and examining the charge superpositions the model anticipates. Life is busy so I'll approach it that way when I get the chance. Edited January 31, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I have read the paper. I don't have a problem with the description. The question is better discussed by entirely eliminating a value for time and examining the charge superpositions the model anticipates. Life is busy so I'll approach it that way when I get the chance. Go right on ahead.. I for one understand quite well what the differences between antiparticles and particles are including what their corresponding degrees of freedom does in terms of thermodynamics. Prior to leptogenesis and baryogenesis the antiparticles contributions can be accounted for. No one knows for sure what caused the two the SO(10) MSM and MSSM has some metrics that may explain it. Still waiting for further details on the Highs metastability. In particular the seesaw mechanism. Considering the majority of the top particle physicists are working on what I just stated. I'll take that opinion over the article you posted in a heartbeat. Particularly since that article had zero metrics. Particle physics and cosmology is my two favorite fields of study. If you want read.. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf:"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis these will give you the tools to properly approach your conjecture. Here is the SO(10) approach http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0509190 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted January 31, 2015 Author Share Posted January 31, 2015 Thanks Mordred. I think I'll have some time to go over that this week as it turns out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted January 31, 2015 Author Share Posted January 31, 2015 these will give you the tools to properly approach your conjecture. If I have a conjecture in investigating this direction it is the question of vacuum. Without a mechanism that stabilises it how does exponential expansion of BB equilibrate? I have to assume that the electromagnetic energy that is exerted on the universe we observe plays a role in vacuum maintenance. I can see no reason this would be stable without relativity being maintained with a mass of common origin but polaric momentum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now