Could the Big Bang have been a quick conversion of antimatter into matter?

Jul 19, 2011 by Lisa Zyga report
If matter and antimatter repel each other, the quick conversion of one into the other inside a supermassive black hole may look like a Big Bang. Image credit: NASA

(PhysOrg.com) -- Suppose at some point the universe ceases to expand, and instead begins collapsing in on itself (as in the “Big Crunch” scenario), and eventually becomes a supermassive black hole. The black hole’s extreme mass produces an extremely strong gravitational field. Through a gravitational version of the so-called Schwinger mechanism, this gravitational field converts virtual particle-antiparticle pairs from the surrounding quantum vacuum into real particle-antiparticle pairs. If the black hole is made from matter (antimatter), it could violently repel billions and billions of antiparticles (particles) out into space in a fraction of a second, creating an ejection event that would look quite similar to a Big Bang.

Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic, a physicist on leave from Cetinje, Montenegro, currently working at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland, emphasizes that he has no idea if this scenario occurred 13.7 billion years ago or not. But in a recent study published in Astrophysics and Space Science, he has described a mechanism that can convert matter into (or vice versa) that results in a cyclic universe that is successively dominated by matter and antimatter. In this scenario, when a matter-dominated universe collapses, an antimatter-dominated universe emerges, and the cycle continues indefinitely.

Cyclic universe

The idea of a cyclic universe is not new. As Hajdukovic notes in his paper, in 1922 cosmologist Alexander Friedmann noticed that Einstein’s theory of general relativity is compatible with the framework of a cyclical universe. More recently, cyclic models have included loop quantum gravity, braneworld theories, and other “Big Bounce” models. However, unlike Hajdukovic’s scenario, in all of these models, all cycles are dominated by matter. As Hajdukovic explains, he is not offering a new cyclic model of the universe, but simply a mechanism that could, in principle, have allowed the transition from a matter-dominated universe to an antimatter-dominated universe, and vice versa.

To begin, the mechanism must allow for the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs from the quantum vacuum. Although the quantum vacuum is completely empty of particles or anything else, there do exist short-lived virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that pop in and out of existence, as allowed by the uncertainty principle. To explain how these virtual particle-antiparticle pairs can become real ones, Hajdukovic turns to the Schwinger mechanism, which says that an electric field stronger than a critical value can create real electron-positron pairs from the quantum vacuum. He proposes that, in a gravitational version of the Schwinger mechanism, gravitation could create both charged and neutral particle-antiparticle pairs from virtual particles.

The mechanism also relies on the hypothesis that matter and antimatter repel each other. This repulsion could be of gravitational origin (as in the idea of antigravity) or non-gravitational origin. Here, Hajdukovic imagines the existence of a matter-antimatter repulsion that is significant only at short range; specifically, inside a black hole’s event horizon, or smaller than the Schwarzschild radius. Immediately after the gravitational Schwinger mechanism produces particle-antiparticle pairs, the repulsion force would cause a black hole to violently repel the opposite particle type. The result would be the conversion of nearly all matter into antimatter (or vice versa) in a very short time that depends on the size of the black hole.

Through calculations, Hajdukovic shows that the amount of matter that can be converted into antimatter (or vice versa) in one second could be up to 10128 kg, which is several orders of magnitude greater than the entire mass of the universe, about 1053 kg. If correct, it would mean that all of the matter in the universe could be converted into antimatter in a fraction of the Planck time.

Such a scenario would have multiple implications. For one thing, it would prevent the universe from collapsing into a singularity by requiring a minimal size of about 40 orders of magnitude greater than the Planck length, or on the order of kilometers. This is the size of the universe after cosmological inflation, suggesting that inflation and everything that came before it in standard cosmology (such as numerous phase transitions) never occurred.

The scenario also offers a simple explanation for matter-antimatter asymmetry: the reason that our present-day universe is dominated by matter instead of antimatter is that the previous universe was dominated by antimatter. And the next one will, once again, be dominated by antimatter.

Beyond Standard Cosmology

Whether or not this scenario is accurate, Hajdukovic explains that it's important to investigate alternatives to the standard model of cosmology, given its limitations.

“Apparently, our best physics [Einstein’s General Relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics] is insufficient to explain a series of observed phenomena in astrophysics and cosmology,” he said. “In addition to the well-established physics, the standard model of cosmology assumes (a) the existence of mysterious dark matter and dark energy which represent more than 95% of the content of the Universe, and (b) the existence of two mechanisms (of unknown nature) to assure inflation and matter-antimatter asymmetry in the primordial universe. Hence, the Standard Cosmology is based more on hypotheses than established physics. It is a very unsatisfactory situation.

“Contrary to it, my work is an attempt to understand astrophysical and cosmological phenomena in the framework of the established physics, without invoking unknown forms of matter-energy and unknown mechanisms for inflation and matter-antimatter asymmetry.”

In a handful of other recent papers, Hajdukovic has shown that understanding the universe in this way may indeed be possible. For instance, in his paper titled “Is dark matter an illusion created by the gravitational polarisation of the quantum vacuum,” he obtains a “striking equation” in agreement with observations and without invoking dark matter.

He added that it may be possible to test one of the basic components of these ideas, namely, detecting signatures of the gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter. The most direct test is the AEGIS experiment at CERN, which is designed to measure the gravitational acceleration of antihydrogen in the gravitational field of the Earth. Another test could come from the Ice Cube Neutrino Telescope at the South Pole, which could observe antineutrinos coming from supermassive black holes in the center of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies.

“If you ask me what is the key for the understanding of the universe, I would say the quantum vacuum together with (for the moment hypothetical) gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter,” Hajdukovic said. “One simple key, instead of four mysterious keys in Standard Cosmology. My answer may be wrong, but if it is correct it would radically change theoretical physics, astrophysics and cosmology.”

Explore further: Neutron tomography technique reveals phase fractions of crystalline materials in 3-dimensions

More information: Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic. “Do we live in the universe successively dominated by matter and antimatter?” Astrophys Space Sci (2011) 334:219-223. DOI: 10.1007/s10509-011-0754-2

Related Stories

Antimatter gravity could explain Universe's expansion

Apr 13, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In 1998, scientists discovered that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Currently, the most widely accepted explanation for this observation is the presence of an unidentified ...

UBC physicists make atoms and dark matter add up

Nov 29, 2010

Physicists at the University of British Columbia and TRIUMF have proposed a unified explanation for dark matter and the so-called baryon asymmetry -- the apparent imbalance of matter with positive baryon charge and antimatter ...

Recommended for you

50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet installed at Fermilab

Jul 31, 2014

One year ago, the 50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet arrived at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois after traveling 3,200 miles over land and sea from Long Island, ...

User comments : 170

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Donutz
5 / 5 (41) Jul 19, 2011
This is real science. You come up with an idea, figure out what the consequences would be, compare that with observations, and either build, scrap, or modify the idea. The important thing is that if this hypothesis turns out to NOT match observations and/or predictions, the guy will scrap it. Meanwhile, those of us on the sidelines with working brains will wait and see, read with interest, and withold judgement pending more info.
VitalStatistic63
2 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
I have often wondered about the case of a cyclic universe. Why do we assume that the universe would expand and contract in all directions symmetrically? If we imagine the universe as a giant ball, is it possible that the ball could be elongated in one axis and squashed in the other two? Is it then possible that it could collapse in say the X direction, while it still has some depth in the Y and Z directions. Is it possible for it to collapse down to a flat 2D disk, then re-expand in that single axis while the other 2 axes are still contracting? If it were a cyclic universe, it would be likely that this be the case, and that we would not be in the first cycle, and therefore we should be able to detect some difference in the expansion or contraction depending on which direction we look.
Shelgeyr
3.6 / 5 (14) Jul 19, 2011
Good comment, Donutz.

Just because of the subject matter, I feel obliged to add the famous Terry Pratchett quote: 'In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.'
Gawad
4 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
This is real science. You come up with an idea, figure out what the consequences would be, compare that with observations, and either build, scrap, or modify the idea. The important thing is that if this hypothesis turns out to NOT match observations and/or predictions, the guy will scrap it. Meanwhile, those of us on the sidelines with working brains will wait and see, read with interest, and withold judgement pending more info.


Quite so. However, he does immediately run into the problem that there's no indication that the universe is ever going to collapse. Collapse is kind of the linchpin of his proposal, moreso even than baryogenesis, I therefor don't really get where he's coming from. I can understand about waiting for experimental results to confirm antimatter's gravitational interactions, but still, it's almost like he missed the last decade of cosmology. ???
rawa1
1.2 / 5 (15) Jul 19, 2011
This is real science. You come up with an idea, figure out what the consequences would be, compare that with observations, and either build, scrap, or modify the idea.
Well, this is just a problem of the article discussed - it doesn't provide any testable hypothesis, in which this idea could be tested (the preprint is freely available). Apparently your ideas about "real science" don't match very closely with "real science", published in mainstream journal....;-)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.1260

I can see problem in semantics of concepts used: how we can recognize, if some part of observable universe doesn't belong into current generation of it? IMO this idea "is not even wrong" from this perspective.
rawa1
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 19, 2011
BTW In my theory the antimatter is not missing in our universe generation at all - it's just widespread inside of clouds of dark matter, because particles of antimatter should repel mutually with their gravity. So because there is no real excess of antimatter, we shouldn't expect it in another generations of cyclic Universe - even if they could exist and if we could observe them.

IMO more relevant approach would be to consider the clouds of dark matter as a remnants of previous generation of Universe from this perspective - despite they're living with us.
SteveL
5 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
One observation that seems counter to the cyclic model is the apparent increasing rate of universal expansion. Would not the greatest rate of expansion be expected at the beginning of the cycle? Or, should we expect some kind of "waves" where at times movement is faster or slower, and we are simply observing the acceleration to a faster period?
LKD
2.8 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2011
I have reservations about the cyclical universe model, but I can see it happening. Entropy is omnipresent and at 100% could possibly precede a recession of all matter of the universe back to an initial center point.

The biggest shortfall of this article is the assumption that antimatter has a repulsive effect on normal matter. If this was so, wouldn't magnetic trapping of those particles when produced in a supercollider be unnecessary?

It's an interesting thought experiment. I hope that someone can test portions of the theory.
rawa1
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2011
Would not the greatest rate of expansion be expected at the beginning of the cycle?
Yep, this is the right point. IMO the idea of cyclic universe is rather anthropocentric artifact. If we would sit at the water surface, we could see, how the tiniest ripples are of longitudinal nature (Brownian noise). The larger ripples would be transverse (Faraday waves) but with increasing distance the longitudinal character of surface waves will prevail again.

Does it mean, that the water surface is cyclic from general perspective? Apparently not, it's just an artefact of dispersive character of space-time. Nevertheless, we can still consider the water surface as a scale invariant fractal and deduce some predictions from this approximative model. Because this model is schematic, it could give some particular predictions more effectively, than the other theories. But from the same reason such model could become misleading for some other predictions as well.

It's tic-for-tac situation.
Raygunner
3 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2011
This actually makes a lot of sense to me. If the Hajdukovic calculations hold up, and the antimatter-matter gravity experiment works as expected (antimatter=repulsive gravity) then we are in for some changes. Hopefully the antimatter-matter gravity experiment will be finished by year's end since they can produce antimatter in sufficient quantities now to see a reaction.
krundoloss
2 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
I like the idea of a cyclical universe. The nature of it is mind boggling, though. What force could the reversal of expansion and eventual contraction of the universe. Perhaps its a form of MacroGravity that we cannot observe. I am fascinated by Gravity, how atoms attract each other, then clump and clump at infinite levels. How far does it go? If electrons orbit atoms, Atoms form planets, planets orbit stars and solar systems orbit Galactic Cores (blacks holes, right). At that point the Galaxies float around, perhaps there is a very large scale Gravity at work that controls the motion of the galaxies, but why dont Galaxies orbit something like all other matter seems to?
emsquared
2.2 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
I always liked the cyclic universe idea, never had the knowledge to explain it of course (not a physicist), just makes sense to me given the rest of symmetry in nature, so I love this article but:
What is "dominated", like 99.9999~%? As in, our present reality is dominated by matter, is there theory that says where anti-matter could/should be found? Or can it basically only be created for a short time via high-energy collisions (LHC)?
Also what does a universe dominated by anti-matter look like?
Re: the universe accelerating in expansion conflicting the possible contraction. How do we know that, relatively, we're not still very early in the expansion process, so of course we're still accelerating, or that we're not actually slowing or even contracting already but the progression is on some other dimensional curve so we appear to always accelerate? I'm picturing like, rounding the endless curve of a Mobius Strip. That may just be nonsensical poetic juxtapositioning, but I still like it.
Donutz
5 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2011
Well, this is just a problem of the article discussed - it doesn't provide any testable hypothesis...


Doesn't provide one YET. It's not reasonable to expect an idea to come out fully formed. Even string theory, which for years underwent the same criticism you're levelling, has started to make some testable predictions. Ideas tend to evolve and develop. As long as you're not getting ahead of yourself and starting to talk about it as a fact before it's even passed a test, I think speculation is still part of the scientific process: Bizarre thought -> speculation -> hypothesis -> theory.
Pyle
3 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2011
Donutz - Well said, twice now.

Here's wild conjecture based on some of the recent research that I think works with this:

What if this ties in with the rotating universe stuff (Longo)?
What if the universe is one big Closed Timelike Loop?
Could anti-matter have a backwards time arrow as well as anti-gravity? (Note: this would be indistinguishable to us from how we currently view anti-matter behavior. Causation reversed...tending towards less entropy...)
How does the "striking equation's" results match up to galaxy rotation curves? What is necessary to make it match? How does it compare to other theories, such as Moffat's MOG? or MOND? Does this theory provide the mechanisms we see for increased gravitational "dominance" at larger scales?

Watch and wait. Watch and wait. Astrophysics is exciting!

Anti-gravity observation at CERN with AEGIS is a testable prediction, btw.
Pyle
2.5 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
One more wild idea,
What if the universe isn't cyclic, but instead the universe "started" at the BB? So at the BB, Hajdukovic's explosion went in two directions, our matter universe expanding with the forward time arrow and an anit-matter universe expanding in the opposite direction with the backward time arrow. Both with accelerating expansion in opposite directions.
rawa1
1 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2011
What force could the reversal of expansion and eventual contraction of the universe
IMO it's ill defined question. The most natural state of Universe isn't zero or some other particular or repetitive state, but random state. It just appears periodic from local and limited perspective of people in the same way, like the density fluctuations inside of gas and/or travel through equally sized bubbles of foam - the first few cycles will appear quite periodic, but after few cycles this periodicity will become broken undeniably.

Why the bubbles of Universe should appear equally sized? Because their size is defined with visibility scope of human observer, rather than some intrinsic granularity of Universe. It's a sorta tuning or sampling effect: because of wave interference rules, for every object of particular size embedded in random environment the granularity of the rest would appear sized in accordance to the size of this object.
rawa1
1.6 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2011
Doesn't provide one YET. It's not reasonable to expect an idea to come out fully formed. Even string theory, which for years underwent the same criticism you're levelling, has started to make some testable predictions. Ideas tend to evolve and develop.
Why not, but from the same reasons the interpretations of crackpots shouldn't be refused prematurely.

Whereas we can see, how people, when facing some new/unconfortable hypothesis are screaming: "you cannot give us testable predictions, so your idea is useless!"

One of signs of pathological scepticism is the usage of double standards in the application of criticism.

http://en.wikiped...epticism

Anyway, whole this discussion started with comment: "This is real science. You come up with an idea, figure out what the consequences would be, compare that with observations..."

When it turns out, that no actual prediction was given, then the criterion of "real science" suddenly changed by 180 degrees...;-)
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2011
I'm just illustrating with this example, how our criterions of "real science" can become subjective and flexible. Symptomatically enough, just the first most subjective comment was labelled with highest number of readers, although it can be refused most easily.

It can serve as an example, which type of readers the moderators of PhysOrg forum preselected with their "antispam" engine...
emsquared
1 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2011
The most natural state of Universe isn't zero or some other particular or repetitive state, but random state.

This doesn't make sense to me. If random is it's natural state then why do we have entropy? Isn't entropy basically a progression from order to random, concentrated and dense to uniformly yet randomly dispersed? If complete randomness was it's basic state, entropy would have nothing to work on, no?
rawa1
1.2 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2011
The mechanism also relies on the hypothesis that matter and antimatter repel each other
Why not - but it's just a hypothesis by now. Cyclic universe is another hypothesis. Another hypothesis is, that inside of black hole the conversion of matter into antimatter may occur. Another hypothesis is, our Universe itself is formed with interior of such black hole, if this model tries to explain the disbalance of matter and antimatter in our Universe.

Despite of presence of some math, this model should be handled as a product of many unverified hypothesis. IMO each of this hypothesis is partially correct from certain perspective, but due their mutual combinations a serious noise or phase shift of reality may result. For example, such model could miss the situation, even our generation of Universe is full of matter, not just some outer antimaterial one. The finding of large amount of antimatter inside of dark matter clouds would invalidate such model fast.
rawa1
1 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2011
. If random is it's natural state then why do we have entropy?
Well, it's the right question.

But I can ask as well, why do we have a gravity? The physicists who are considering, that the entropy of universe increases spontaneously from the moment of its creation are ignoring the fact, the entropic phenomena do apply only to the distance scale bellow ~ 2 cm. Above this scale all flocks of matter tends to condense because of their gravity, instead. Whereas the evaporation of gas particles is entropic phenomena, why the condensation of ice flocks in space into comets should be considered as an entropic phenomena too? You should consider, that the topological inversion of space-time at the ~ 2 cm scale occurred, after then.
El_Nose
5 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2011
@rawa1

Actually the author of the paper saws in the interview that there are two tests that may deny his model with assurance. Granted if they coincide with his model it will just be more proof in his favor but not indicate enough evidense to go changing the standard model.
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2011
Actually the author of the paper saws in the interview that there are two tests that may deny his model with assurance.
The problem is, this model relies on the logical chain of more than one unverified hypothesis at the single moment. Such model has too many degrees of freedom, so to say. You cannot verify or deny whole this sequence with assurance with two tests only. You should verify all elementary hypothesis with binary tests first to be completely sure.
Pyle
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2011
You should verify all elementary hypothesis with binary tests first to be completely sure.

What? No. That is not how it works.
You test what you can test and keep plugging along. If multiple methods are correct (predictions in line with observations/tests), you keep using them all, picking the most useful until one proves wrong.
gwrede
1 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2011
If the universe started at a point in time, then there has to have been something that got it started. (Or else Pratchett was right: 'In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.')

But assuming a cyclic universe is even worse. Then, either there again is something on the outside that keeps it going, or not. In the latter case, the universe is a closed system that cycles forever. But that means that we then have to abandon the laws of thermodynamics.

I'm not yet ready for either Omaturm or God, so somebody please do some thinking for us!
emsquared
1 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2011
But I can ask as well, why do we have a gravity?

I'm not asking why do we have entropy, thermodynamics makes sense and is observable and demonstrable. I'm asking if your statement is assumed correct, how do you account for entropy.

Your response seems to be, random is relatively meaningless at greater than ~2cm scale then? Which doesn't that make your statement regarding the initial state of the universe kind of meaningless at a greater then ~2cm scale?

Since everything can be broken down to, or has components at a less than 2cm scale, I think you either need to redefine your classification of "random" or re-state your thesis.

Whereas the evaporation of gas particles is entropic phenomena, why the condensation of ice flocks in space into comets should be considered as an entropic phenomena too?

The condensation isn't but eventually that comet's either going to strike something and blow into smithereens or be whittled away by radiation, which there is the entropy.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2011
If we would sit at the water surface
Aw FRACK. Another Zefir/Jigga/Alizee sockpuppet. Didn't know about that one.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2011
So at the BB, Hajdukovic's explosion went in two directions, our matter universe expanding with the forward time arrow and an anit-matter universe expanding in the opposite direction with the backward time arrow. Both with accelerating expansion in opposite directions.

Hi Pyle. Wouldn't "expanding...with the backward time arrow" still be the equivalent of "contracting with the forward time arrow" and leave the BB as a Bounce? Not sure what meaning "opposite direction" would have here.
david_42
5 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2011
"The biggest shortfall of this article is the assumption that antimatter has a repulsive effect on normal matter."

Not really, as this falls out of several approaches to GUT. Gravitational repulsion is certainly testable, although we are just getting to the point where we can do so. Granted, if the repulsion is real, that doesn't prove any one approach, but it will result in demonstrating several approaches are not correct.
Pyle
2.2 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
Hi Pyle. Wouldn't "expanding...with the backward time arrow" still be the equivalent of "contracting with the forward time arrow" and leave the BB as a Bounce? Not sure what meaning "opposite direction" would have here.
Me either. There has just been some speculation that to balance the BB that anti-matter went one way and matter the other, with respect to time.
I have no idea what that would mean. Just throwing it out there. I'll try to find time to look up all the crap I threw out there and provide links later.

And with Zephyr, look out for Callippo too.
grama
1 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
Cross0ver point in physics and spirituality research: is perfection static or dynamic? My gut (for want of other proof at this time) says perfection must be dynamic to account for the existence of time, and of cycles. If the physical universe can be perfection that is cyclical, perhaps dark energy crossing electromagnetic energy is the source of 'mass', each node in a standing wave being a particle of 'mass'.
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2011
What? No. That is not how it works. You test what you can test and keep plugging along.
Can you read? I'm just saying, "it" doesn't works so. If Mr. Hajdukovic is saying, he is able to verify his chain of four or five unverified hypothesis with just two experiments reliably, then he just should learn a bit about combinatorics.
Callippo
1 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2011
Since everything can be broken down to, or has components at a less than 2cm scale, I think you either need to redefine your classification of "random" or re-state your thesis.
I'm just saying, entropic Universe has its limit at the dimensional scale of ~ 2cm. Above this limit all phenomena are driven with gravity, which has its thermodynamical time arrow reversed from flat space-time perspective. Therefore we cannot say, whether the entropy of Universe increases or decreases as a whole and we can assume rather safely, it remains constant.

Illustratively speaking: for every galaxy evaporated into photons and neutrinos at some place of observable Universe some other galaxy should emerge from clouds of photons and neutrinos somewhere else.
emsquared
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2011
So, Callippo is rawa1 is Callippo? Good to know.
Callippo
1 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2011
So, Callippo is rawa1 is Callippo? Good to know.
LOL, for what? My person is completely irrelevant here.

Marie Curie: "In science we must be interested in things, not people."

emsquared
2 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
I'm just saying, entropic Universe has its limit at the dimensional scale of ~ 2cm. Above this limit all phenomena are driven with gravity, which has its thermodynamical time arrow reversed from flat space-time perspective. Therefore we cannot say, whether the entropy of Universe increases or decreases as a whole and we can assume rather safely, it remains constant.

Hey physicists out there, is this accurate? The statement that entropy has a scale at which it's no longer acting on something seems incorrect to me. I realize entropy is not always a one-way thing, in that things can become more orderly, but even then, some energy had to be exerted to create that order so entropy is still acting, no? Even gravity, the more massive something gets the closer it comes to either becoming a star or drawing in something that will destroy it where it will radiate energy, and still be entropy in action, no?

Is this guy talking out his ass or am I missing something?
Pyle
3 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
Speak of the devil. ^^Zephyr sockpuppet #2 on this thread, Callippo

Anyway, here is some of the stuff I was yammering on about.

spinning universe:
http://www.physor...mos.html

CTC's (CTL):
http://en.wikiped...e_curves

anti-matter - reverse arrow of time:
http://en.wikiped..._of_time

anti-matter - anti-gravity:
http://www.physor...ion.html

and of course... MOG:
http://arxiv.org/...1.1935v2

None of these are meant to be definitive sources. Just places to look for more information on the stuff I was babbling about.
emsquared
3.3 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2011
LOL, for what?

Nothing really, just as an observation in psychology (id,ego,super-ego), behavior/motivation, etc.
My person is completely irrelevant here.

Irrelevant to your words, sure. But I think it's interesting to see if people use different "voices" or if they use it to rank themselves, etc. Not saying there's anything wrong with it, just that it's interesting, information that I think probably has some application somewhere.
Eikka
1 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
Wait a minute.

You have a black hole full of matter, then it reaches critical density as it falls towards the singularity, then matter and antimatter starts to appear...

Wouldn't the antimatter anhillate with the matter, leaving matter and a whole buttload of energy in the form of radiation behind?

That would throw everything apart until the density is no longer sufficient to make it a black hole. Insert anti-gravity effects if you like, that could explain the accelerating expansion, but it's still a universe that starts from matter and is always dominated by matter.

Eikka
1 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
Continuing with the thought-play.

Suppose there's an initial condition where equal amounts of matter and antimatter exist. Since there is a repulsion between the two, the universe expands evenly until both start to clump up, like with like.

At that point, the matter clumps start to flow past the antimatter clumps and the universe separates into two big clumps which start to collapse on themselves while moving away from each other.

As they collapse, each clump eventually creates a smaller Big Bang which bounces them back out, but in both cases the pre-existence of matter or antimatter anhillates the other option at the Big Bang.

And you're left with two universes that cycle, one made of matter, the other made of antimatter, separated by their mutual repulsion.
Eikka
1 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
That in turn begs the question; where did the initial condition come about?

It could be cyclic as well. Seeing that matter slowly decays back into energy, The two universes slowly vanish, leaving behind a space full of just energy.

This space has no "size" anymore. Large becomes small, so the energy density is great again. Matter and antimatter appear out of empty space, and the whole thing starts all over. (This is based on an earlier idea of a cyclic universe I read on Physorg)
SemiNerd
not rated yet Jul 19, 2011
I have reservations about the cyclical universe model, but I can see it happening. Entropy is omnipresent and at 100% could possibly precede a recession of all matter of the universe back to an initial center point.

The biggest shortfall of this article is the assumption that antimatter has a repulsive effect on normal matter. If this was so, wouldn't magnetic trapping of those particles when produced in a supercollider be unnecessary?

It's an interesting thought experiment. I hope that someone can test portions of the theory.
\No. The gravitational effect on particles of matter OR anti-matter is small compared to their lifetimes.
Pyle
1 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2011
Eikka, I think what you are missing from the theory here is that the "before the BB" universe here is anti-matter. It is very small (few kms so NO inflationary period necessary) and then BOOM! conversion to matter and huge expansion. There isn't a balance of AM/M or annihilation. I kind of lost where the mechanisms for collapse was in all that, but I just don't think it is mentioned.
Anyway, that was my take on it.
TomSullivan
1 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2011
It seems that the whole universe would always be in equilibrium. Even with great entropy in different proximities, the equilibrium of matter and anti-matter would exist. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed so equal amounts of matter and antimatter should exist at all times, it's just most do not recognize where the antimatter has taken up residence.
In Rip Theory the each elementary particle is made of equal amounts of "matter" and "antimatter". Only through relativity do these amounts seem to become unequal in a location or proximity. Somewhere distributed through out the universe is the energy that offsets this imbalance, thus keeping the universe "in balance".
Eikka
1 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
Eikka, I think what you are missing from the theory here is that the "before the BB" universe here is anti-matter.


Yeah, but here's the niggle: If there's no anhillation and only anti-gravity to throw it all apart, then there should be massive amounts of anti-matter still present in today's universe. More than there is matter.

And there's too much mass left over. Why does the previous anti-matter, and the new anti-matter dissapear? What converts it to matter?

I don't think the bang should create more matter/antimatter than there was previously. Otherwise you run into a problem: where comes the extra energy?

To me it makes sense only if the appearance of anti-matter into a black hole made of matter throws it all apart by the energy of the anhillation process, leaving behind matter.
Eikka
1 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
Expanding the though:

Imagine an infinite (or closed) universe of only energy, where the energy density is high enough that matter and anti-matter spontaneously appear everywhere.

This universe is evenly distributed over the large scale, so repulsion and gravity should keep it stable even if M starts to clump up with M and AM with AM.

Once the clumps become massive enough, they collapse into black holes, where the existing M combines with newly created M and AM. The result is a Big Bang that leaves behind matter where matter was, and anti-matter where anti-matter was.

As the matter/anti-matter everywhere slowly vanishes back to energy over the eons, the system still remains stable because it's infinite (or closed). Eventually the energy density of space increases as mass dissapears, and pop, out comes matter/anti-matter again.
Ober
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
I really like this Theory. Uses a lot of well known concepts and is testable in certain areas. I also love that it reduces some of the Bull S__t introduced in inflationary theory. If anyone has read inflationary theory, it's nothing but invented BS piled on top of more BS to the point that you need to have faith in order to believe anything in inflationary theory. Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic has done a marvelous job at reducing the BS. He could be wrong, but it looks like he's applied occam's razor to the right areas, thus this idea have now become my personal accepted idea for the origin(cyclic) of the universe.

Well Done!!!!
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2011
Uses a lot of well known concepts and is testable in certain areas.
certain = I dunno, which ones..
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2011
Simply put inadequate.

This universe "rebounded" from a black hole in another antimatter universe? Really?

Invoke elves, pookas, or the spaghetti monster...any of which are equally valid IMO.

Give me a mechanism. I don't see it. We'd still be in the "other universe" in some sense. We don't see any mechanism here to account for this in our universe. We see black holes, we have sound theories for how they behave, this doesn't apply. Cyclic universes are out the window ATM...and even though this isn't a "traditional" cyclic universe it's still in the same vain with no more evidence than magic. He says the math is there. My question is...WHERE.

Hawking radiation obeys the first law of thermodynamics...this doesn't. It's an unjustified leap. Moreover it doesn't address any of the significant philosophical or scientific problems inherent in the current model.

An interesting idea...but unimpressive. Unless we are able to detect the supposed repulsive force between a-matter and matter.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
I wonder if you can get antimatter shooting into space from a lightning storm.
dusanmal
not rated yet Jul 19, 2011
Historically article failed to notice almost identical theory (which left cyclical/non-cyclical question open) in work by Hannes Alfven (Varlden-Spegelvarlden, Aldus/Bonniers Stockholm 1967). Alfven didn't want to speculate further back in time but instead of singularity of BigBang he theoreticized about a cloud of diluted matter/antimatter coalescing by gravity, concentrating matter and antimatter, resulting in "BigBounce" explosion we now extrapolate further to singularity of BigBang. Very similar theory.
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2011
Two universes, of identical total energy, that oscillate back and forth from matter to antimatter, always out of phase, sine and cosine.
Raygunner
5 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2011
Personally I think we are in the anti-matter universe and the other is regular matter, but what I think really doesn't - um, matter. :^\
akaryrye
1 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
A thought just occurred to me ... Imagine a great gravitation force at the center of the universe (like a huge black hole) pulling everything back toward the center as we speak. Imagine also that we are located midway between this black hole and the edge of the universe. Matter closer to the gravitational force would be moving away from us at ever increasing speed, while we would be also moving away from the edge. In this scenario, the universe is actually contracting, but appears to be expanding from our vantage point.

Turritopsis
1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2011
Vrlo interesantna idea, jako sam trenutno zauzet ali u da naem vreme da pregledam papir i providim loginu eskalaciju. Idea izvrsno zvui, jedina stvar koja mi trenutno iskoi i zabrine je ta o gravitacionalnom reakcijom mase prema antimasom. Moda si u pravu ali sklapanje jednog i drugog proizvodi svjetlo. Da jedno odbije drugo bilo bi puno vie mase (nego se vidi), i puno manje svjetla, lol, ponovo se nadjemo na istom mjestu sa darkmasom.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (12) Jul 20, 2011
Krivo sam razumiju teoriju. Nova je pa mi je logino teka svatiti. Prije nego previe kaem u papir da proitam i provjerim. Brzopletnu greku sam ve napravio u zadnjem komentu.
Isaacsname
5 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2011
Two universes, of identical total energy, that oscillate back and forth from matter to antimatter, always out of phase, sine and cosine.


With an anti-physicist at anti-CERN doing anti-experiments with particles ? Me 2, what he said.
jsdarkdestruction
not rated yet Jul 20, 2011
"Contrary to it, my work is an attempt to understand astrophysical and cosmological phenomena in the framework of the established physics, without invoking unknown forms of matter-energy and unknown mechanisms for inflation and matter-antimatter asymmetry.

Didnt read all the comments yet so sorry if its been brought up already but i had to say this.
UM, didnt he just propse a new unknown mechanism based partly on a hypothesis that antimatter and matter repel which has no evidence of it spotted yet?
GoodElf
1 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2011
Why not at T=0 (Big Bang) when equal amounts of matter and antimatter were formed - that all the "matter" went forward in time and all the "antimatter" (which is just backward traveling "matter") simply went back into negative time? This would be a different Rindler Foliation separated from our "forward in time" universe but otherwise identical. Never the twain shall meet. The theory was favored by Feynman and is known as the Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation of antimatter. When in doubt - Feynman is always right!!
kevinrtrs
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 20, 2011
Apparently, our best physics [Einsteins General Relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics] is insufficient to explain a series of observed phenomena in astrophysics and cosmology, he said. In addition to the well-established physics, the standard model of cosmology assumes (a) the existence of mysterious dark matter and dark energy which represent more than 95% of the content of the Universe, and (b) the existence of two mechanisms (of unknown nature) to assure inflation and matter-antimatter asymmetry in the primordial universe. Hence, the Standard Cosmology is based more on hypotheses than established physics. It is a very unsatisfactory situation

At last, an admission by one cosmologist, as someone else intimated up top, BB's a matter of FAITH.

JadedIdealist
5 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2011
all the "antimatter" (which is just backward traveling "matter") simply went back into negative time?

Dang, Feynman is the man.

The Hajdukovic proposal seems unlikely to me if it requires gravitation to repel antimatter from matter - as they both have positive energy, and it is energy - in any form whatsoever - that controls the curvature of space-time in general relativity.
If it turns out that antimatter falls up then lots of people will be very very shocked.
JadedIdealist
5 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2011
@emsquared
This doesn't make sense to me. If random is it's natural state then why do we have entropy?

Because when the universe changed state from inflating to not inflating it was very uniform - which is a very low entropy in a non inflating state.
Remember that what the second law of thermodynamics says is likely, depends on the underlying physics,
and if that changes so can the direction of entopy increasing change..
As a "down to earth" example: for a small volume of gas in a fish tank, where gravity is negligable then the 2nd law says a uniform gas is the most random.
However, if you make the fish tank huge then gravity becomes dominant, and the most random state is now a single black hole surrounded by vacuum!!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2011
Why not at T=0 (Big Bang) when equal amounts of matter and antimatter were formed - that all the "matter" went forward in time and all the "antimatter" (which is just backward traveling "matter")

We routinely observe anti-particles produced via beta decay (e.g. for use in PET scanners. Many isotopes decay through the emission of a positron - which is the anti-particle to the electron, e.g. C11, F18, N13, O15, .. ).

If these particles went 'backwards in time' we would not see them annihilate when they hit something after they have been produced.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2011
In this scenario, the universe is actually contracting, but appears to be expanding from our vantage point.

If this were the case then the universe would have a center and hence we would see the residual radiation from the big bang come from only one direction.
However, we observe the residual radiation coming from all directions - which indicates that the universe inflated (effectively meaning: 'everywhere' is(was) the center)

If we were all falling towards a big black hole we would also see a different pattern of motion among galaxies (with a definite directional component).
DavidMcC
not rated yet Jul 20, 2011
Why not at T=0 (Big Bang) when equal amounts of matter and antimatter were formed - that all the "matter" went forward in time and all the "antimatter" (which is just backward traveling "matter")

We routinely observe anti-particles produced via beta decay (e.g. for use in PET scanners. Many isotopes decay through the emission of a positron - which is the anti-particle to the electron, e.g. C11, F18, N13, O15, .. ).

If these particles went 'backwards in time' we would not see them annihilate when they hit something after they have been produced.


A good point, antialias!
zaqaz
1 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2011
This is real science. You come up with an idea, figure out what the consequences would be, compare that with observations, and either build, scrap, or modify the idea. The important thing is that if this hypothesis turns out to NOT match observations and/or predictions, the guy will scrap it. Meanwhile, those of us on the sidelines with working brains will wait and see, read with interest, and withold judgement pending more info.


Quite so. However, he does immediately run into the problem that there's no indication that the universe is ever going to collapse. Collapse is kind of the linchpin of his proposal, moreso even than baryogenesis, I therefor don't really get where he's coming from. I can understand about waiting for experimental results to confirm antimatter's gravitational interactions, but still, it's almost like he missed the last decade of cosmology. ???


The universe is contracting in an outwardly direction.
Raygunner
not rated yet Jul 20, 2011
Why not at T=0 (Big Bang) when equal amounts of matter and antimatter were formed - that all the "matter" went forward in time and all the "antimatter" (which is just backward traveling "matter")


Even though I am staunchly "anti-time", this is an interesting mind-game. At T=0, antimatter goes backward in time and matter goes forward. Eventually both contract again to T=0 and the process reverses: matter is now antimatter and antimatter is matter. This becomes a time-loop - forward-time and backward-time universes expanding out from T=0, then contacting back like two balls on a rubber band, infinitely. Here is the issue: the same time segment, and as far as I can tell, ALL EVENTS IN BOTH UNIVERSES, might repeat forever in an endless loop.

I don't think this is true for a moment but I could be typing this comment - YET AGAIN - for the trillionth time!

Fun to consider anyway.
GoodElf
1 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2011
If these particles went 'backwards in time' we would not see them annihilate when they hit something after they have been produced.
antialias_physorg

this is an interesting mind-game. At T=0, antimatter goes backward in time and matter goes forward. Eventually both contract again to T=0 and the process reverses: matter is now antimatter and antimatter is matter.
Raygunner

I may need to clarify... what the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation of antimatter says is after "matter" comes into being some "matter" is directed forward in time and some "matter" is equally directed backwards in time and we see it as "antimatter" moving forward in time. After all... it is not possible to "causally" notice backward motion in time since that would involve "remembering the future"... we poor humans can only "remember the past" so we "interpret" matter moving backwards in time as if it was another type of particle(antimatter) moving forwards in time too. That is what Feynman meant.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Jul 20, 2011
and we see it as "antimatter" moving forward in time.

That makes no sense as it would mean that antimatter would, to us, not only appear to defy gravity but also appear to defy thermodynamics.
While the jury on the former is still out the latter is most definitely not the case.
GoodElf
1 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2011
That makes no sense as it would mean that antimatter would, to us, not only appear to defy gravity but also appear to defy thermodynamics.
You are right... according to some the "force" of gravity "always attracts". Note that the direction of motion is not the same as the direction of force. Running time backwards for gravity does not reverse the direction of the "force" but might reverse entropy in some "dissipative" cases. The Law of Thermodynamics "is" related to the Law of "Gravity" according to Spinosa Prize Winner Erik Verlinde. Gravity is not a force itself but is the result of entropy. Check out his prize winning paper on Thermodynamics, Gravity and the Holographic Universe... "On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton" arXiv:1001.0785v1 [hep-th] 6 Jan 2010. It not only explains Gravity as "not a force" but also the enigmatic "dark energy". He got a 2.5 Million Euro gift for this paper this year so it is to be taken quite seriously.
Gawad
not rated yet Jul 20, 2011
We see black holes, we have sound theories for how they behave, this doesn't apply. Cyclic universes are out the window ATM...and even though this isn't a "traditional" cyclic universe it's still in the same vain with no more evidence than magic.

While "see" BHs may not be quite the best way to put it, good point. Not only does he not provide a collapse mechanism (there isn't one as far as we know), but he doesn't explain how BHs in our universe don't immediately vaporize in an explosion of matter to anti-matter conversion. (And where is all our antimatter then?) And if they *can't* because all this happens inside the BH event horizon, than how would the same not apply to the primordial singularity (or almost-singularity in his proposal)? I think it likely, given this proposal also relies on anti-matter having anti-gravity (an unlikely prospect, though one whose confirmation is worth waiting for) that it's a dead end. I.e., he would need to treat both BH types differently.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2011
That paper seems to be a bit debated (especially the relationship of thermodynamics to gravity simply on what the equations 'look like'.) Here's an interesting critique of the paper:
http://badphysics...erlinde/

That said: The holographic principle is an interesting concept and worth looking into.

It not only explains Gravity as "not a force"...

Relativity already explains gravity as not a force (it replaces forces in an euclidian space with straight movement in a non-euclidian/warped space.

...but also the enigmatic "dark energy"

Scanning the article I couldn't find any reference to dark energy or dark matter. If at all it would hint at an even distribution of dark matter/energy which we don't observe.

Equating thermodynamics with information has also been tried before, but this has always run into big problems. Especially when you run up against uncertainty principles.
bishop
not rated yet Jul 20, 2011
I like this theory a lot... Very simple and in a way very elegant!
Sounds very much like an Ockham's razor theory! IMHO of course.
emsquared
1 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2011
Remember that what the second law of thermodynamics says is likely, depends on the underlying physics,
and if that changes so can the direction of entopy increasing change...

Thanks for the response, Jaded!

Looks like I have some reading to do if I want to try and talk physics again.
elbeasto
not rated yet Jul 20, 2011
The mechanism also relies on the hypothesis that matter and antimatter repel each other.


Can someone please explain this to me. I thought we already knew matter and anti-matter attracted (http://www.physor...m.html). Excerpt below:

Cassidy explained that when positrons are implanted into materials, they can sometimes get stuck on the surface, where they will quickly find electrons and annihilate.
...
"They do this by forming positronium, which is spontaneously emitted from the surface. The free positronium lives more than 200 times longer than the surface positrons, so it is easy to detect."


How would they form positronium if they repelled each other? I could understand if the force of the electron was greater than the force of the repel that it would annihilate and Hajdukovic's theory could hold true. But if the forces were balanced( so to speak ) long enough to form positronium then there must be an attractive force. Right?
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Jul 20, 2011
How would they form positronium if they repelled each other?

Because electrons and positrons have opposite charges (which attract). This force is much stronger than gravity at the short distances involved.

With some suitable momentum this could lead the two (if they don't hit and annihilate) to spin around each other for a short time.
This is not a very stable configuration and so the half life of this construct is rather low.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2011
Is this guy talking out his ass or am I missing something?

Out of his ass. You have no idea of all the kinds of crazy going on in his head. (Sorry S_H, had to borrow that one from ya.)
Gawad
not rated yet Jul 20, 2011
and we see it as "antimatter" moving forward in time.

That makes no sense as it would mean that antimatter would, to us, not only appear to defy gravity but also appear to defy thermodynamics.
While the jury on the former is still out the latter is most definitely not the case.
But wasn't this basically how Feynman described it, at least at a non-technical level? You know, flipping the T on matter in CPT?
Rutzs
1 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2011
I'm not expert by any means,

What if the effects of gravity, and how everything in the universe is clumping up together, can that be a sign that the 'big crunch' is already happening? Won't all the galaxies eventually merge due to gravity anyways?

I know that what I say is ridiculous, because we can still see the universe expand by examining the redshift. It's just a random idea to throw in the air.
elbeasto
not rated yet Jul 20, 2011

Because electrons and positrons have opposite charges (which attract).


Right, so an electron is matter and a positron is antimatter, and Hajdukovic believes that matter and antimatter repel each other.

This force is much stronger than gravity at the short distances involved.


Are you saying that the repulsion Hajdukovic believes exists between matter and antimatter is a form of gravity and therefore is weaker than the attraction of opposite charges?

With some suitable momentum this could lead the two (if they don't hit and annihilate) to spin around each other for a short time.

That is what I envisioned in my head but didn't make sense if the repulsion was stronger than the charge attraction.

Thanks for your help!
Pyle
1 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2011
EM forces for electrons dominate over gravity because of the relative strength of the charge vs. the size of the mass.

Whether anti-matter mass and matter mass repulses is unknown as of yet.
@antialias:
That makes no sense as it would mean that antimatter would, to us, not only appear to defy gravity but also appear to defy thermodynamics.
While the jury on the former is still out the latter is most definitely not the case.
Yup. Not sure. and Why not?
What testing of thermodynamics for anti-matter have we done to see if anti-matter doesn't tend towards order rather than increasing entropy with forward time? I say it is unlikely, but I'd put the jury still out on that too. I am not supporting this theory, but I don't see any reason to dismiss it out of hand.

There seems to be a lot of resistance to consider this theory. The theory is based on apparently valid math and the author claims it cleans some stuff up. Leave the door open until the scientists close it properly.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2011
"In science we must be interested in things, not people."

One of these interesting things being the strange behavior of certain people.
TomSullivan
1 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2011
Rip Theory predicts that the whole universe would always be in equilibrium. Even with great entropy in different proximities, the equilibrium of matter and anti-matter would exist. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so equal amounts of matter and antimatter should exist at all times, it's just most do not recognize the true roots of what matter and antimatter are.
In Rip Theory the each elementary particle is made of equal amounts of "matter" and "antimatter", (the two edges of a rip). Only through relativity do these amounts seem to become unequal in a location or proximity. Somewhere distributed through out the universe is the relative energy that offsets this imbalance, thus keeping the universe "in balance" at all times.
© Copyright 2011 by Thomas A. Sullivan

So it seems the article may be a good thought experiment, but I feel that future findings will be to the contrary.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2011
So mass attracts, but particles repel, particles are charged bosons, now it is down to the curvature of the field and the mechanics within. Theory: dimpled field: mass positive axis & mass negative axis. Matter and antimatter are dimensionally separated, their construct is opposing. But its not correct Higgs in positive and Higgs in negative creates a pull a bubble, the two massive and antimassive particles are attracting each other to neutrality, can't forget decay, matter degenerates, the loss of charge results in lack of bosons. The negative mass of antimatter and the positive mass of matter attract, not repel, the repulsion is the radiance of the elementary charge, but elementary relative to us, because we are the design of a small spectrum, although we are searching for new spectrums (in other words looking from other viewpoints), relatively speaking there is nothing but reality, realistically there are many more spectar dimensions we've already witnessed other than our
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2011
own, there are in all likely hood spectral views we are not privy to. The theory of chance. By offering choice randomness likelyhood to construct increases. For human beings to exist the field is quite complex (infinite directionality about a singularity. Infinite degrees of variance abound a singular point. To explain is pointless because it is infinitely varied and I am not (that's relativity). Electrical and antielectrical charge create particles. If they are reversed at the poles the negative and positive charges can coexist if not they mechanically grind into each other creating light (em energy), neutrinos, electrons, positrons - sin atomic components. Quarks? Negatively and positively charged highs field deviations created by charge, positioned in the correct triangular configuration the three particles flow into each other neutral energy configuration, no gain no loss, energy is neither... Charge deviates the field creating massive bosons (the underlying Higgs).
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2011
I'll wait for the experiments to confirm whether reversely constructed matter repulses gravitationally. I would bank on not personally (my assumption based on previous data in coordanance with theory) but in realiy I must have acceptance for the unknown, it is a given that forces are at work that are out there that I will never know about. Why? Humanity. We are so complex. We must fall from higher complexity. Rather the nature of design is choice from all available choices we are somehow derived, choices that didnt exist are unfulfilled options. Does that make sense? We are drawn out of infinite probabilities. And we are not only one we are drawn from varying sized components - spectrally varied (atoms of different sizes, our cells, our organs). We found our one components, then we found those even smaller than the periodic elements we found the elementary particles (which vary to the singularity), now we begin to realize that probability dictates infinite variance of possibilities. Wh
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2011
y not the small, the big. We are beginning to learn that the big (the stars) are just singular components in accordance to definition of atomic construction. Plasma is current of matter. Mass falls together (the higgs boson is created as a common massive particle. Visualizing the Higgs field in 2D in while envisioning the positive and the negative axis (as in a chart type format) gives the illusion of mass repulsion. It is a 3D field one charge is always more positive than the other in the 3 dimensional field. Mass always attracts regardless of the composing charge (the couplet). But I guess that's what experiments are for. I have to admit though, reversing gravity by inverting charge would be great, in my opinion not probable, I will wait and see.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2011
Won't all the galaxies eventually merge due to gravity anyways?

That depends on whether all of space is positively/negatively curved or 'flat' (i.e. how much gravity there is in the universe). Presently it looks like the universe is close to 'flat' and will not collapse again.
Think of it in terms of escape velocity: When you shoot something off the Earth with greater than 7km/s it will not fall back - even though the gravity of earth will act on it forever as it hurtles ever further away.
So if the mass in the universe heads away (on average) at a certain minimum speed we'll not see a big crunch.

What testing of thermodynamics for anti-matter have we done to see if anti-matter doesn't tend towards order rather than increasing entropy with forward time?

Matter antimatter reactions seem to conform to the laws of thermodynamics pretty well. If one of the components in the reaction were 'anti-thermodynamic' should we not see a different cumulative behavior?
Magnette
not rated yet Jul 21, 2011
Some questions from an engineer who is trying to learn!

Assuming Hajdukovic's theories are correct there will be a point between expansion and contraction of the universe where neither states apply. What effect will this have on universal entropy and matter/antimatter relationships at that point?

Would this 'change in direction' be universal at the same time or will there be reversal at some points before others?
Pyle
2 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2011
Matter antimatter reactions seem to conform to the laws of thermodynamics pretty well. If one of the components in the reaction were 'anti-thermodynamic' should we not see a different cumulative behavior?
My understanding was that our experiences with anti-matter were pico seconds long until just recently. "conform to the laws"??? Are you sure? Know anywhere that discusses this? I looked quickly, but no dice

Anyway, regarding flat vs. curved and collapse. We are currently apparently observing ACCELERATED expansion. We don't understand the mechanism for this, but it definitely suggests that collapse isn't in the cards in the near future. At least not a meaningful collapse in our understanding of the term.

We create M - AM pairs in high energy reactions and see it in decay. Gravity is "instantaneous". To me, it only makes sense that M and AM have opposite gravitational effects, else the curvature from the created pairs would cause discontinuities in spacetime.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (12) Jul 22, 2011
Aw FRACK. Another Zefir/Jigga/Alizee sockpuppet. Didn't know about that one.


And with Zephyr, look out for Callippo too.
Callippo has some rather high rankings by Orgon. Orgon is also Zephyr.

Zephyr said:
LOL, for what? My person is completely irrelevant here.
Your POSTS are irrelevant but your attempts to create an illusion of support by agreeing with yourself is typical of you Zephyr.

Marie Curie: "In science we must be interested in things, not people."
Supporting yourself under fake names is just dishonest. So is upranking yourself. You are no Marie Curie and Curie did not pretend to be other people. She had REAL support and not a bunch of self-congratulatory sockpuppets.

It is funny when you lose track of which fraudulent name you are using. But that sort of entertainment is dependent on you being an even bigger idiot than you are a complete and utter wanker.

Ethelred
SteveL
not rated yet Jul 22, 2011
Is there a particular section of the sky where accelerating expansion (in relation ot us, the observer) has been detected, is expansion on just two sides of us, or has accelerated expansion been detected all around us?
Gawad
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2011
you are a complete and utter wanker.

Ethelred

You know, I don't think I've ever seen this apply so thoroughly, in a metaphorical sort of way. Not only are his post pure mental masturbation, but so too is his sockpuppeteering!
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2011
or has accelerated expansion been detected all around us?
Its based on measurements of supernova brightness over time. Anywhere in the sky. All around us. Those measurements may or may not mean that there is acceleration but that is the best guess for the data at the moment. This nowhere near as solid as the evidence for expansion.

Ethelred
ScienceLust
5 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2011
These comments prove that God sends his people to the internet to lie cheat and be disshonest to proov he is real and for his glory.
Back to the article....I wonder if the antimater- antigravity idea is why the universe is expanding and speeding up doing so.Gravity should be pulling it back together,at least in my head. I loved this article.Shwiiing!
ScienceLust
5 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2011
These comments prove that God sends his people to the internet to lie cheat and be disshonest to proov he is real and for his glory.
Back to the article....I wonder if the antimater- antigravity idea is why the universe is expanding and speeding up doing so.Gravity should be pulling it back together,at least in my head. I loved this article.Shwiiing!
SteveL
5 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2011
God doesn't send anyone anywhere. People just get psychotic and/or dillusional and make assumptions - then blame it on God, or the Devil, in order to reduce their sense of accountability for their own actions. When we mature and become adults we realize we are responsible for our own actions, our own lives and our own happiness.
Pyle
1 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2011
Quoting myself:
We create M - AM pairs in high energy reactions and see it in decay. Gravity is "instantaneous". To me, it only makes sense that M and AM have opposite gravitational effects, else the curvature from the created pairs would cause discontinuities in spacetime.

I missed something obvious in this. The AM to M conversion suggested by this paper would create quite the "discontinuity in spacetime" I guess. Maybe I should leave the conjecture to people who have more of a clue.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (15) Jul 23, 2011
God doesn't send anyone anywhere. People just get psychotic and/or dillusional and make assumptions - then blame it on God, or the Devil, in order to reduce their sense of accountability for their own actions. When we mature and become adults we realize we are responsible for our own actions, our own lives and our own happiness.


I want you to look a child who has lost a parent in the eye and tell them there is no heaven. All of you atheists are insensitive immature pricks. You have zero sense of reality and zero sense of what religion does for mankind. Has everything that religion brought to the table been positive? No. But on the by and large it has brought us to where we are today. How do I know this? Religion has played an integral role in the building of societies. It has helped man deal with grief and allowed man to proceed with life in the face of death. I'm sick and tired of anti-scripture-preachers such as Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2011
Have a little consideration for others before venturing in irreverent blasphemous ways. You were born after the fact so you have no first hand evidence against the claims. If God designed the world and the universe how hard would it be for him to design fossils? Exactly. Grow up and speak of things that you believe in, if you don't, shut up!
tigger
4.8 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2011
"I want you to look a child who has lost a parent in the eye and tell them there is no heaven."

Yep, not easy... but truth and fact doesn't care about easy or hard.
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (13) Jul 23, 2011
I want you to look a child who has lost a parent in the eye and tell them there is no heaven.

Why would that be a problem? You should tell children the truth, but it must be done in a way that is age appropriate so that the child can understand you. Once you start telling lies about god and heaven you're on a slippery slope, especially when the child asks you follow up questions about heaven and you have to keep making additional shit up.

All of you atheists are insensitive immature pricks.

Having a dummy-spit? Sounds very mature!

You have zero sense of reality

Oh the irony!

and zero sense of what religion does for mankind.

The unfortunate effects are all too common to see.

Has everything that religion brought to the table been positive? No. But on the by and large it has brought us to where we are today.

Bullshit. We (at least those with Western values) got here DESPITE the best efforts of organized religion.
Deesky
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 23, 2011
I'm sick and tired of anti-scripture-preachers such as Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins.

Not too familiar with Bill Maher, but Richard Dawkins rocks! There should be more like him.

Have a little consideration for others before venturing in irreverent blasphemous ways.

Blasphemy my ass. Consideration for others is what a civil society is based on, and it has nothing to do with any religion. As Dawkins said: "Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death".

You were born after the fact so you have no first hand evidence against the claims.

What claims?

If God designed the world and the universe how hard would it be for him to design fossils?

You peanut.

Exactly.

:)
Deesky
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 23, 2011
Grow up and speak of things that you believe in, if you don't, shut up!

If you want to talk about unsupported beliefs, this isn't the forum for you, so why don't you take your ignorance and your own advice and YOU shut the hell up. Going off to read some Richard Dawkins...
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2011
I want you to look a child who has lost a parent in the eye and tell them there is no heaven.
The question is 'why did someone lie to the child in the first place about a fantasy land? I just keep my mouth shut because I was not the one mis-raising the child. My nephew NOW knows better. Some years after the grandmother that told him the fairy story died he admitted that he didn't believe in your fantasy.

All of you atheists are insensitive immature pricks.
Translation= we Agnostics are not the assholes that are telling lies to innocent children.

zero sense of what religion does for mankind.
False. I was raised in religion. I know that it gives people fantasies about how the world really works. Like the ones you have. Only no one told me the lie about the world being only 6000 or so years old. They still had the fantasy about a sick god murdering all life with a flood. Sure am glad the universe wasn't created by something that would do such a thing.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2011
religion brought to the table been positive? No.
So why believe it when its just a fairy story.

But on the by and large it has brought us to where we are today.
No. Dissatisfaction with things as they were brought us to where we are now.

Religion has played an integral role in the building of societies.
Like one billion Muslims that want to force everyone else to be a Muslim and the 30 Years War, the Chinese Civil War, Jihads, Inquisitions, witch burning, and many other things. None of the good things needed religion for them to have happened.

t has helped man deal with grief
I don't need a crutch based on fantasy. You IDIOT religious wack jobs seem to be under the delusion that Agnostics don't have dead relatives. We just don't lie to ourselves about the dead. We deal with grief the same way everyone else does. The pain goes away overtime and magic sky gods have nothing to do with that.>>
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2011
and allowed man to proceed with life in the face of death.
If that was true why I haven't I all the other Agnostics and Atheist slit our wrists? Do you really think we are that much tougher than you? Do you think so little of yourself?

I'm sick and tired of anti-scripture-preachers such as Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins.
We are sick and tired of the Aggressively Ignorant trying to force their fairy stories on us. At one time your kind would have and DID murder us. From what you are saying its the only way you can handle your weakness with grief.

Have a little consideration for others before venturing in irreverent blasphemous ways.
There is no blasphemy since your god doesn't exist. However why do you blaspheme Odin? There is every bit as much evidence for Odin as Jehovah. None at all.

so you have no first hand evidence against the claims.
You have none for the claims. However we DO have ample evidence that Genesis is a total crock.>>
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2011
If God designed the world and the universe how hard would it be for him to design fossils?
So then, Jehovah is a liar in your oppinion. That is exactly what you just accused your god of. Lying and then torturing for all eternity those that believe the world instead the book that does NOT claim to be the word of Jehovah. Only you and other Aggressively Ignorant people make that claim. Why should anyone believe a book that depicts a world that does not match the world we live in?

Grow up and speak of things that you believe in, if you don't, shut up!
We are speaking of things that we not only believe in, that we actually have evidence for, as opposed to your crap that goes against the entire universe. So why did you come here if you don't like hearing the truth?

Ethelred
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2011
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims is unknown or unknowable.
- wiki definition of an agnostic

You don't know anything.

An agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God.


There is no evidence

Ethelred
BlankVellum
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2011
The sheer level of pseudoscience, quackery and religious nonsense on this thread is very depressing.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2011
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims is unknown or unknowable.

- wiki definition of an agnostic

You don't know anything.
You don't the real definition but that definition you just used does not in any way conflict with anything I said. CERTAIN claims is in no way ALL claims. There was no Great Flood. The world is not 6000 years old. The word Agnostic was created by Thomas Huxley and not a wiki that didn't his definition and thus modified the actual intent, though not the extent that anyone with half and ounce of brains would claim that Huxley was unsure on the nonexistence of Jehovah as described in Genesis.>>
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2011
A REAL definition of Agnostic.

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.
I have ample evidence that Genesis is just plain wrong. Any god that is described in Genesis is no more real than any other thing in Genesis. Which leaves Jehovah at the same level as Odin or Zeus. Without supporting evidence and lots of evidence against their existence.

An agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God.
Wrong. An Agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves the existence a 'god' that cannot be tested. Your god is the god of a non-existent flood and thus that particular god does not exist. That I don't believe in YOUR god, based on strong physical evidence, in no way implies that ALL possible gods don't exist.>>
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2011
I am in no way whatsoever limited to YOUR incompetent interpretation of what an Agnostic is. You idea is that an Agnostic is some sort of drooling imbecile that can't make up its mind no matter how strong the evidence.

You labor the delusion that when I say Jehovah doesn't exist that means NO god could exist. Plenty of gods are possible but any god that MUST have a young Earth or a Great Flood does not exist. So that leaves out Allah, Zeus and Odin as well. Deist gods may exist.

There is no evidence

Ethelred
And that is true. There is no evidence for YOUR god despite the fact that such evidence MUST exist if the god exists. This holds for Allah, Zeus and Odin every bit as much. Zeus, Jehovah, and Allah all need that Great Flood and even Zeus requires a young Earth. Thus none of them exist.>>
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2011
Try using logic instead of lies. And remember the Golden Rule. I don't come to your church or place of religious study to rant at you so don't come here to rant at us. And knock off the lies about Agnostic and Atheist morals on death and children. That was sick and disgusting. You are an appalling excuse for a human being at this time. Funny how you pretended that no one mentioned your odious vile intemperate behavior. The best you could manage was to tell more lies.

Oh yes, I see you ignored my question so I will repeat it.

Why should anyone believe a book that depicts a world that does not match the world we live in?


You ignored this one as well.
If that was true why I haven't I all the other Agnostics and Atheist slit our wrists? Do you really think we are that much tougher than you? Do you think so little of yourself?


Ethelred
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2011
Evidence is not data. For data to become evident requires faith in the belief of the hard truth that data represents. The data you call evidence against the existence of God could have been written by God. At this point all of your evidence is rubbish. There comes a point at which the traceability of reality stops. This article states the beginning of time (the big bang) is a cyclic event: the beginning leads to the end and the end brings on the beginning. The creation of reality is as of yet undefined. God may or may have not created the universe. This is not a question of logic.

When an analyst looks into a program to find errors they cannot state that the program wrote itself because it follows the rules within.

Some questions are unanswerable. You think you have evidence against the claim but that evidence is a part of the picture.

Have you ever thought that you may be taking the Bible too literally? What if the 14 billion years were compressed into 6000?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2011
I am a true agnostic. I have no supporting evidence for either side. I have faith (and an understanding of the limitations of faith).

All science does the same. On faith the mainstream scientific community 'accepts' that the big bang was the result of a singularity of infinite mass and density. The beginning is unprovable and everything else that follows is based on this unproven event, evident yet? Matter antimatter derivation out of a neutral (non-existent) reality allows for nothing to have started the event (except the energy that was required to create it all). The universe "logically" (as you state) was created. By What or Who is as of yet unanswered.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2011
And so you'll stop making presumptive statements let me clarify: I belong to no religious group. I am not Christian. I'm using the bible (and Christianity) as an example.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2011
Inside the event time is infinite (all there is). The LHC has created many 'universes'. Some of these may have contained life. Time is event dependent. A fraction of a second to an outside observer is not necessarily a fraction of a second to the observed.
BlankVellum
5 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2011
@Turritopsis

Evidence is not data. For data to become evident requires faith in the belief of the hard truth that data represents.


In the words of the great Wolfgang Pauli, this isn't even wrong. It amazes me how dishonest theists such as yourself will warp science in order to relativize knowledge, presumably because you know implicitly that your own beliefs are indefensible in any serious scientific discussion.

You are beyond parody, you really are.
BlankVellum
5 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2011
@Turritopsis

I am a true agnostic. I have no supporting evidence for either side. I have faith (and an understanding of the limitations of faith).


I'm sure you apply this retarded agnosticism to fairies and unicorns as well yes?

On faith the mainstream scientific community 'accepts' that the big bang was the result of a singularity of infinite mass and density


No, they don't. The standard model of cosmology is simply the application of induction, or the inference of best explanation. No serious physicist would say with certainty that the universe was condensed down to a point of infinite mass and energy. What they would say it that the big bang theory has a lot of explanatory and predictive value (eg abundance and even distribution of helium and deuterium), and is supported by a large body of evidence (Hubble's constant, CMB, galactic evolution etc). From these myriad lines of evidence we say that it looks as if the universe emerged from a singularity.

BlankVellum
5 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2011
@Turritopsis

Good scientific theories are theories that are well evidenced and critically tested descriptions of reality, but they are both contingent and corrigible. Science may not be able to claim truth for its theories, but it can claim a high degree of verisimilitude. Your conception of science is entirely wrong. There is no faith involved.
Gawad
5 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2011
I am a true agnostic

What you are is a liar.
SteveL
5 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2011
Ohh, looks like I stirred the hornet's nest then went on weekend break. What fun. :)

If you'll notice, I capitalized the words God and Devil out of respect for believers. If you want to belive something, go for it, just don't expect me to play your games and believe as you do. Is there room for a God or Gods? Yes. Either as an advanced species that we can barely comprehend or as a universoal creator that we cannot. The infinite is beyond our understanding. In either case such a being, or beings are beyond us, and it is incredibly ego-centric to think that we are somehow their chosen children, much less that one would send their Son down here to die for us. I do not believe in any personal God who answers prayers. If one did exist, in my mind there are millions of slaughtered dead; Jewish, Christian and other faithful believers to answer for.

We humans tend to be incredibly ego-centric and think we know things we in actuality barely understand. We're still learning.
Gawad
5 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2011
The LHC has created many 'universes'

And a loonie crackpot.
Gagarin
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2011
This is a discussion about science; it is pity that you discuss religion.
I cant judge the Value of the model proposed by Hajdukovic, but it is the most poetic and elegant alternative to the Big Bang Cosmology I have ever seen.
Gagarin
not rated yet Jul 25, 2011
This is i discussion about science; it is pity that you discuss religion.
I cant judge the Value of the model proposed by Hajdukovic, but it is the most poetic and elegant alternative to the Big Bang Cosmology I have ever seen.
Wilhelmus
2 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2011
Relegion is a kind of Theory of Everything for billions of people, it gives them an explanation of their world that they experience around them , their reality, we as scientists do not believe , we want to experience our "reality" by arranaging experiments that must be an exact repetition of former ones, if so we are willing to accept them as a "fact", we are going to "believe" in the form of reality we are chasing.
From the point of view we are in , our 4d causal deterministic world, we think of theories like this one, of matter and antimatter which comes to rebouncing bubbles, anticausal worlds, and so on. Each year however our vision will change because new "facts" are discovered, isn't it a beautifull universe, giving us every moment a new belief ?
We think every day that we touch the TRUTH , while the TRUTH is a hyperbolic approach wher we will arrive in the infinity, which is a non existing point in our 4D Universe.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2011
The LHC has created many 'universes'

And a loonie crackpot.


Tell that to the scientists that designed this "big bang" machine to study the origin of the universe. But just like the big bang this machine requires energy to spark genesis (creation of particles). Where did the energy that started the universe come from? Answer this and that will be irrefutable evidence for or against a creator. If you can't you'll be dealing with loonies like me until your time expires and you meet your maker, Gawad.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2011
Tell that to the scientists that designed this "big bang" machine to study the origin of the universe.

Idiot. The LHC was designed to study electro-weak symmetry breaking. "'big bang' machine to study the origin of the universe" is media hype gobbled up by wannabes like you.

Don't worry, I'm under no illusion that finding out 'where' the energy that started the universe (if any-the universe might well ultimately be a zero-sum condition) came from will make loonies like you disapear. No matter what the theorized answer was, loonies like you will always be around because the answer dosen't matter to you anyway; only your irrational, unsupported beliefs do. Like children afraid of the night you are helpless without them, so there are unfortunately going to be plenty of you around even after I have met, or failed to meet, my maker.
FrankHerbert
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2011
Where did the energy that started the universe come from? Answer this and that will be irrefutable evidence for or against a creator. If you can't you'll be dealing with loonies like me until your time expires and you meet your maker, Gawad.


That's awfully "agnostic" of you. Stealth theist detected. Why do you feel the need to lie about your faith?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2011
In the beginning 2 forces 1. electromagnetism and 2. weak nuclear force were joined as 1 singular force. The disjoining of the 2 was the creation of matter (our physical world). The study of symmetry breaking is the study of creation.

Weak nuclear force is physical breakdown. The originating influx of energy has resulted in hundreds of billions of galaxies (each containing 100 billion stars). The process of fractioning has not stopped. Stars go supernova fractioning further.

The study of electro-weak symmetry breakage is the study of universal evolution.

1 singular point of infinite mass and density went "Bang" producing particles (notice the plural). From one many were derived.

Electro-weak symmetry breakage is the study of the big bang. I guess the wannabes like me know a little more than you, Gawad.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2011
3 forces delves further still. The strong nuclear force holds against fractioning (decay, breakage). When the universe was a singular component those 3 forces (1.Electromagnetic, 2. Weak nuclear, 3. Strong nuclear) were 1. All 3 forces were joined and gravity works as a force of influence from one body to the next. With one singular body gravity has yet to emerge. All of the forces of nature were at one point 1.
FrankHerbert
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2011
LMAO turritopsis, the weak force isn't even required for an anthropic universe. Lol, what nonsense.

http://en.wikiped...Universe
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2011
I guess the wannabes like me know a little more than you, Gawad.

After that word salad you just tossed around, I'm sure you think you do, but that's your double-ignorance problem to deal with.

Electro-weak symmetry breaking is studied to understand the orign of mass. Of course this will lead into insights about early cosmic evolution. But I didn't write that saying the LHC was designed "to study the origin of the universe" was crackpot, did I, humm? You little lying Fundy Xtian, you. It's wrong but not loonie; you'll never find that description in the design considerations.

Your crackpot bullshit about the LHC having already created plenty of other universe is of a different order, however.

And what you just did there is called moving the goalposts. I know, I know, it's one of the more typical logical fallacies of Xian fundy liars. You'll have to be a little more argumentatively original and/or subtle than that. Perhaps the Argument Clinic is more your speed.
FrankHerbert
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2011
Deesky
5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2011
Where did the energy that started the universe come from?

Perhaps a rare type of quantum fluctuation, but that's just idle guesswork. Basically, we don't know.

Answer this and that will be irrefutable evidence for or against a creator.

Why? Since we don't know the answer to the question, how can you possibly know that the cause (if it's ever determined) will be any kind of evidence for or against a creator?

That's like saying, if you answer the question of what causes lightning, it will be irrefutable evidence for or against a creator. Silly logic.

If you can't you'll be dealing with loonies like me until your time expires and you meet your maker

Unfortunately, cranks will always be with us. Science can inform the mind, but the mind has to be programmed correctly so that it doesn't mangle science's message. It's too late for you.
Gawad
not rated yet Jul 25, 2011
@Turritopsis

http://en.wikiped...r_effect


Ouch!
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
@Turritopsis

http://en.wikiped...r_effect


Ouch!

Notabene:
"it is clear from Dunning's and others' work that many Americans, at least sometimes and under some conditions, have a tendency to inflate their worth. It is interesting, therefore, to see the phenomenon's mirror opposite in another culture."
frajo
4 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2011
The word Agnostic was created by Thomas Huxley

The term "agnostic" was coined by Thomas Huxley.

It's one of many word forms in the tradition of the Greek word family "gnomi", "gnosis", "gnoriso", etc. and stems from the Indoeuropean "*gno" like the Latin "notio", the English "know" and the German "kennen".

Gnosticism was a set of religious beliefs in the early centuries of Christianity. Its adherents were called gnostics.

No creation at work here. Just a common Greek prefix added to a scholarly well-known Greek term. Likewise the first pubic hair neither is a creation.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2011
Where did the energy that started the universe come from?

This is a (mis)leading question.

A question like 'Where did X come from?' implies two things:
1) The existence of a prior place where X resides
and
2) a prior time to the event at which X appeared

Neither of these implications are a given under current thories. They just arise from our everyday experience that there always exists time and space for stuff to happen in. The situation at the big bang was rather more extreme than the - by comparison - rather uneventful current state of the universe (whatever model you use). Therefore one should be careful to postulate such things as time and space as givens without hesitation.

We already know that causality breaks down wherever uncertanity principles are involved. it is therefore likely not a fundamental but an emergent property of the universe. So we shouldn't postulate causality as so basic as to be the law that governs singular/extreme cases like the Big bang.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2011
You know, now that I think about it, Turritopsis may actually have been doing a strawman up there, or even have been clever enough to get a two-for-one: Moving the strawman :)
SteveL
not rated yet Jul 26, 2011
A thought just occurred to me ... Imagine a great gravitation force at the center of the universe (like a huge black hole) pulling everything back toward the center as we speak. Imagine also that we are located midway between this black hole and the edge of the universe. Matter closer to the gravitational force would be moving away from us at ever increasing speed, while we would be also moving away from the edge. In this scenario, the universe is actually contracting, but appears to be expanding from our vantage point.
I had thought of this also, but discounted it rather quickly. This observation would only be accurate in two directions, one towards the source and one further away. It wouldn't account for the accelerated expansion detected in the other directions.
frajo
not rated yet Jul 27, 2011
Where did the energy that started the universe come from?

This is a (mis)leading question.

A question like 'Where did X come from?' implies two things:
1) The existence of a prior place where X resides
and
2) a prior time to the event at which X appeared
...
We already know that causality breaks down wherever uncertanity principles are involved. it is therefore likely not a fundamental but an emergent property of the universe. So we shouldn't postulate causality as so basic as to be the law that governs singular/extreme cases like the Big bang.

It's worse than that.
Not only are causal considerations not necessarily of any help regarding the initial boundary state of the dynamical system "universe" - we also have to keep in mind that this state of minimal entropy is being governed by rules comprising the realms of planck regions, quantum physics, and gravitation concurrently - a state we might never be able to model mathematically except by proving its impossibility.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2011
Well, as long as it follows some sort of rules (not necessarily causal or timelike rules) we'll be able to model it. Even fully random but bounded processes can be modeled to some degree.

However if we find out the process might be fully random and unbounded then we're out of luck - and that just might be the case if it turns out that the / a universe is contextless.

But then again: if that were the case we won't even be able to determine that that IS the case in the first place ;-)
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (5) Jul 28, 2011
"Materialism lives outside the lines of my reality." - The Game
Aristoteles
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2011
CTC's (CTL):
http://en.wikiped...e_curves

anti-matter - reverse arrow of time:
http://en.wikiped..._of_time

anti-matter - anti-gravity:
http://www.physor...ion.html
... ... ble - ble , ble--ble...
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2011
Well, as long as it follows some sort of rules (not necessarily causal or timelike rules) we'll be able to model it. Even fully random but bounded processes can be modeled to some degree.

Can we exclude the case of a system we'll never be able to model because it's governed by rules we'll never know?

We can't experiment with black holes. We can't experiment on Planck scales (except when applying string theory). Hence, there will always be questions about nature unanswered by nature. And we just don't know how far we can trust our modelling tool, mathematics, if there is no possibility to test the predictions of a given model by observation.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Jul 29, 2011
Since we are never able to 'know' anything - just model stuff so that it's useful to us - this isn't a real problem. Whether we'll ever be able to get at infomation on the Planck scale I don't know - but I don't see any principle hurdle why we shouldn't eventually be able to (or why we should never be able to experiment with black holes for that matter).

If we can already have ideas how to (theoretically) bypass stuff like the speed of light then that bodes well that we'll someday figure out how to get information out of other types of 'impossible' situations as well.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2011
Bang
CosineKitty
1 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2011
I am curious about the idea that antimatter produces a negative gravitational field. My understanding is that antimatter must have positive mass, just like "normal" matter; otherwise F=ma would suggest that it would accelerate in the opposite direction to which a force is applied. Clearly, positrons are attracted toward electrons, not repelled, as we would expect because of their opposite charges. So how could a particle with positive mass produce a negative gravitational field? Can someone explain?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2011
Clearly, positrons are attracted toward electrons, not repelled, as we would expect because of their opposite charges.

Um...opposite electrical charges attract.
Gawad
not rated yet Aug 15, 2011
@CosineKitty
First off, note antialias_physorg's post right above ^
So how could a particle with positive mass produce a negative gravitational field? Can someone explain?

Well, you're right AFAIC. As long as antimatter exhibites positive mass and energy, IMO, it should distort space-time geometry the same way matter does. But, it would still be nice to have independent experimental confirmation.

Given the possibility, however, my worry isn't, for example, that a light gas of anti-hydrogen or anti-helium would "fall up" in Earth's gravity well. I'd expect exhibiting anti-gravity would simply mean A-M would distort Space-Time to the same degree matter does but with the opposit sign. This means a small amount of A-M would still fall towards Earth in the lab, but less by the amount of anti-grav it produces. The effect for a even a billion A-M atoms would be very difficult to measure. Matter & A-M might thus be weakly grav repellant, but A-M still self attractive.
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2011
So how could a particle with positive mass produce a negative gravitational field? Can someone explain?
IMO because the space-time around us is not completely flat, it's curved already like the foam with tiny density fluctuations, which are known as a CMBR noise. Of course, the curvature caused with CMBR noise is low, but the curvature of gravity field around positron is not high too. The antiparticles are just doing space-time flatter around itself.
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2011
Matter & A-M might thus be weakly grav repellant, but A-M still self attractive
IMO the A-M is partially attractive (but in lower extent, than the M-M), and A-A is self repulsive. Antiparticles are attracted to the gradient of negative curvature of space-time around massive bodies, which is known like the dark matter, not the particles itself and their repulsive forces prohibit clustering of antimatter. In this way, all antimatter in our Universe is widespread inside of clouds of dark matter. The dark matter is known to be repulsive gravitationally, but it still exhibits positive rest mass and gravitational lensing. It's because in our Universe all gradients are of positive rest mass, despite they're actually repulsing mutually. We are living in gradient driven reality.
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2011
The difference in gravitational attraction of between M-A and M-M could be estimated from the fact, the rest mass of antineutrinos is about 10.000x higher, than the relativistic mass of CMBR photons (aka gravitons) and 10,000.0000 higher at the case of positrons. Therefore the parity violation factor should be 0.01% at the case of antineutrinos and 0.00001% at the case of electrons. During explosions of supernova even such a small change could become significant and the positrons should prevail in black hole jets, not to say about antineutrinos. IMO all stars are surrounded with thick layer of "primordial" antineutrinos ("warm dark matter"), which are in thermal equilibrium with CMBR - so they're of low speed and they're evading detection. The Sun core emanates the polar jets of neutrinos, which are colliding and annihilating with its antineutrino atmosphere. It can be detected with periodical changes in speed of decay of radioactive elements and its changes during solar flares.
Gawad
not rated yet Aug 15, 2011
Jigga, because of the character limit, I was using A-M as short for Anti-matter, not for Anti-matter/Matter. Just thought you should know.

Also, just to make my last statement a bit more clear: when I wrote that, should experiments reveal that anti-matter had negative gravity, that matter and anti-matter would be weakly gravitationally repulsive this was to distinguish the notion from the idea that *any* amount of anti-matter would immediately "fall up" in a matter created gravity well. By "weak" I mean as weak as normal gravity. If a single anti-hydrogen atom (even a single anti-particle) were to "fall up" Earth's gravity well, this is what could be termed "strongly gavitationally repulsive" but thinking anti-matter acts this way is completely warranted. It would imply that anti-matter not only would warp space in the opposite way matter does, but also move along matter created space-time geodisics in a manner opposit to what whould be expected in GR. Not likely, to say the least.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2011
I am curious about the idea that antimatter produces a negative gravitational field.
I don't think so. I was thinking about this on the bus this morning. After reading your post this morning.

For an example I was thinking of an Electron Positron collision and some first principles. I chose those because we see them colliding in space via the characteristic 511 KeV gamma ray pairs, of course we will only see one of the pair from space and sometimes it won't be an equal pair, and because the collision produces cleaner results since they are Leptons and not, that we know of, made of smaller particles as is the case for protons and neutrons.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2011
The key is that they DO go bang when they collide. That means that while they have opposite charges they MUST both be positive energy as opposed to one being made of positive energy and the other of negative energy. If they weren't both positive energy the collision not only wouldn't go bang it wouldn't even go bloop. The positive and negative energy concentrations would simply cancel out and disappear with nothing left behind. But they do go bang so both must have positive energy.

Gravity is produced by matter AND by energy. They are equivalent with E=MC2 as the translating equation. Since both particles have positive energy they both must produce normal gravity. Another way to see this is that the gamma ray pair produced in the collision is equal in energy to the mass of BOTH particles plus an kinetic energy that was involved. One unit of gravity and one unit of anti-gravity would be equal to zero not two 511 KeV gamma rays.>>
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2011
So to get right down to base. Matter and anti-matter both have positive energy and thus both must have positive mass which means both must produce normal gravity. To get anti-gravity you have to have negative mass or its negative energy equivalent. The only thing thought to have negative energy IS gravity at this time. Speculation about exotic matter types is just speculation. Sure would like it to be real. I want my anti-gravity belt.

Ethelred
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2011
and thus both must have positive mass which means both must produce normal gravity
Only when equivalence principle is maintained. For example electrostatic or Casimir forces are apparently independent to the mass of object. Equivalence principle is violated with dark matter, too. In Einstein's field equations the gravity field curvature around massive body corresponds the energy density of this gravity field. This energy corresponds the mass by E=mc² formula, so it should exhibit its own gravity field, too.

Now we indeed have a problem, because we revealed a component of gravity field, which actually doesn't depend on inertial mass of massive object only - but on its density and/or surface curvature, too. This component of gravity field surrounding all massive objects actually depends on diameter of massive objects and its the larger, the smaller this size is. But equivalence principle states, that inertial properties of all massive objects should depend on their mass only.
Gagarin
5 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2011
So to get right down to base. Matter and anti-matter both have positive energy and thus both must have positive mass which means both must produce normal gravity. To get anti-gravity you have to have negative mass or its negative energy equivalent. The only thing thought to have negative energy IS gravity at this time.


Particle and antiparticle have for sure the same inertial mass, but it is still possible that they have the gravitational charge of opposite sign, just as they have the electric charge of opposite sign. While proportional, mass and gravitational charge are not necessarily the same quantity.
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2011
The trick is, the antiparticles have positive gravity, but they're living in inverse time too. Their energy is indeed positive - but their gravity is positive from perspective of their reference frame only, not this one of external observer. Therefore we have good reasons to assume, just for antiparticles the equivalence principle will remain violated most pronouncedly.
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2011
but it is still possible that they have the gravitational charge of opposite sign,
No. Mass energy equivalence is what is involved here. They have the same energy. Thus they must produce the same gravity effects. There is no gravitational charge. At least there is no theory with gravity being a some quantum number tacked on to all the other quantum numbers. It is directly related to the mass-energy of an object. To have anti-gravity you must have negative mass-energy.

Or one heck of a new theory of gravity and pretty much a full on TOE.

More
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2011
While proportional, mass and gravitational charge are not necessarily the same quantity.
That they are not only proportional but, so far, identical. There is no sign of a charge involved just the amount of mass-energy. Which is why I think the Higgs search is a wild goose chase. IF they find the Higgs then I will have to rethink this as the Higgs based on the idea that the mass some particles have a different cause then the mass of the others and that goes against mass-energy equivalence. The Higgs and GR have a serious problem with co-existence. For me anyway.

I am ignoring Zephyr because he is still using sockpuppets. As such I don't care what he says. This will likely go on for the rest of his existence here as he is clearly a sockpuppet addict.

Ethelred
rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2011
To have anti-gravity you must have negative mass-energy
For example, in some cosmological models the dark matter repulsion is responsible for accelerated expansion of Universe and dark energy. Dark energy is positive, the mass of dark matter is positive too - but its gravity isn't. The photons can exhibit both gravity, both antigravity (pressure of radiation) - nevertheless their energy is still positive.

Some cosmologists are even saying, the energy of gravity field is negative and it balances the positive energy of observable matter, so that the Universe can appear from nothing - such explanation would directly contradict your stance. I don't believe in such interpretation - I'm just saying, the physicists are taking the sign of energy quite arbitrary.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2011
Do let us know when you have dropped the sockpuppets and maintained that behavior for at least two months straight. Until then you are not worth talking to.

Any further replies to me from a sockpuppet will result in ones. You will in all ways treat me as if you don't exist unless you are enamored with ones. If you don't understand this go watch the Duelists. Great film, Ridley Scott's first.

Pick a name and stick to it. Two months straight and then maintain.

Then you can have a discussion with me.

Ethelred
rawa1
1 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2011
Then you can have a discussion with me.
I'm not expecting any discussion with just You - I'm just replying the posts in their order. For me the authors of posts here aren't significant at all.

After all, aren't they all anonymous - or not?
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2011
I'm not expecting any discussion with just You - I'm just replying the posts in their order. For me the authors of posts here aren't significant at all.
Well, at least you seem to have understood one thing: the only person you're discussing anything with is yourself. You're talking to yourself; couldn't you just do that by e-mail?
Pyle
3 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2011
Gawad and Eth: I usually try to skip zephyr's posts altogether. You guys actually have me reading them today. No change. He's still apparently intelligent and delusional.

Eth: What is negative energy? Does it enable you to undo something? Don't two photons out of phase cancel each other? I thought the Higgs field was like an EM field. With an EM field you can be pushed away as well as attracted by it. Why wouldn't that be possible with the Higgs field?

With respect to your dislike of the whole Higgs concept, I think I get it. It doesn't seem to fit with the idea of curvature, but people a lot smarter than me say it works so I just keep trying to wrap my pea brain around it.
Gawad
not rated yet Aug 16, 2011
but thinking anti-matter acts this way is completely warranted.
Sorry, that SHOULD have read "but thinking anti-matter acts this way is completely UNwarranted.­­"

I'm not quite yet ready to start cracking pots!