Searching for primordial antimatter

Oct 30, 2008
Antimatter is made up of elementary particles that have the same masses as their corresponding matter counterparts but the opposite charges and magnetic properties. This illustration shows what happens when a particle of antimatter collides with one of matter. The particles annihilate each other and produce energy according to Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2, mostly in the form of gamma rays, which scientists are looking for using the Compton observatory. Secondary particles are also produced. This annihilation has not been seen in the Bullet Cluster. Credit: CXC/M. Weiss

Scientists are on the hunt for evidence of antimatter - matter's arch nemesis – left over from the very early Universe. New results using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and Compton Gamma Ray Observatory suggest the search may have just become even more difficult.

Antimatter is made up of elementary particles, each of which has the same mass as their corresponding matter counterparts --protons, neutrons and electrons -- but the opposite charges and magnetic properties. When matter and antimatter particles collide, they annihilate each other and produce energy according to Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2.

According to the Big Bang model, the Universe was awash in particles of both matter and antimatter shortly after the Big Bang. Most of this material annihilated, but because there was slightly more matter than antimatter - less than one part per billion - only matter was left behind, at least in the local Universe.

Trace amounts of antimatter are believed to be produced by powerful phenomena such as relativistic jets powered by black holes and pulsars, but no evidence has yet been found for antimatter remaining from the infant Universe.

How could any primordial antimatter have survived? Just after the Big Bang there was believed to be an extraordinary period, called inflation, when the Universe expanded exponentially in just a fraction of a second.

"If clumps of matter and antimatter existed next to each other before inflation, they may now be separated by more than the scale of the observable Universe, so we would never see them meet," said Gary Steigman of The Ohio State University, who conducted the study. "But, they might be separated on smaller scales, such as those of superclusters or clusters, which is a much more interesting possibility."

In that case, collisions between two galaxy clusters, the largest gravitationally-bound structures in the Universe, might show evidence for antimatter. X-ray emission shows how much hot gas is involved in such a collision. If some of the gas from either cluster has particles of antimatter, then there will be annihilation and the X-rays will be accompanied by gamma rays.

Steigman used data obtained by Chandra and Compton to study the so-called Bullet Cluster, where two large clusters of galaxies have crashed into one another at extremely high velocities. At a relatively close distance and with a favorable side-on orientation as viewed from Earth, the Bullet Cluster provides an excellent test site to search for the signal for antimatter.

"This is the largest scale over which this test for antimatter has ever been done," said Steigman, whose paper was published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics. "I'm looking to see if there could be any clusters of galaxies which are made of large amounts of antimatter."

The observed amount of X-rays from Chandra and the non-detection of gamma rays from the Compton data show that the antimatter fraction in the Bullet Cluster is less than three parts per million. Moreover, simulations of the Bullet Cluster merger show that these results rule out any significant amounts of antimatter over scales of about 65 million light years, an estimate of the original separation of the two colliding clusters.

"The collision of matter and antimatter is the most efficient process for generating energy in the Universe, but it just may not happen on very large scales," said Steigman. "But, I'm not giving up yet as I'm planning to look at other colliding galaxy clusters that have recently been discovered."

Finding antimatter in the Universe might tell scientists about how long the period of inflation lasted. "Success in this experiment, although a long shot, would teach us a lot about the earliest stages of the Universe," said Steigman.

Tighter constraints have been placed by Steigman on the presence of antimatter on smaller scales by looking at single galaxy clusters that do not involve such large, recent collisions.

Source: Chandra X-ray Center

Explore further: Tiny particles have big potential in debate over nuclear proliferation

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Results from CERN presented at ICHEP

Jul 08, 2014

Speaking at press conference held during the 37th International Conference on High Energy Physics, ICHEP, in Valencia, Spain this morning CERN Director General Rolf Heuer gave a resume of results from CERN that are being ...

NEMO closes in on neutrino mass

Jun 20, 2014

The NEMO (Neutrino Ettore Majorana Observatory) experiment, whose goal was to elucidate the nature of neutrinos and measure their mass, yielded very positive results. The product of an extensive international ...

Recommended for you

What time is it in the universe?

Aug 29, 2014

Flavor Flav knows what time it is. At least he does for Flavor Flav. Even with all his moving and accelerating, with the planet, the solar system, getting on planes, taking elevators, and perhaps even some ...

Watching the structure of glass under pressure

Aug 28, 2014

Glass has many applications that call for different properties, such as resistance to thermal shock or to chemically harsh environments. Glassmakers commonly use additives such as boron oxide to tweak these ...

Inter-dependent networks stress test

Aug 28, 2014

Energy production systems are good examples of complex systems. Their infrastructure equipment requires ancillary sub-systems structured like a network—including water for cooling, transport to supply fuel, and ICT systems ...

User comments : 109

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Modernmystic
3.3 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2008
I realize that when two galaxies "collide" the chances of two stars actually colliding are vanishingly small...but MAN what a "big bang" that would be if two 80ish solar mass stars hit with one being matter and the other being anti-matter. Of course there would be some interaction of the interstellar medium...

My question is would antimatter behave in EXACTLY the same way as matter, or are there subtle differences between the two that would say prevent stars from burning "normally" or are there predictions of gravity acting differently amongst large bodies of anti-matter?
earls
3.8 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2008
My limited understanding is that they are "inside out" mirror particles, nothing more.
Alexa
2 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2008
are there subtle differences?
By AWT the particles are formed by nested density gradients at the surface of foamy fluctuations of vacuum density (i.e. "strings"), analogous to density fluctuations, which we can observe inside of dense condensing gas...

http://superstrun...foam.gif

Every foam bubble consist from two closely adjacent mebranes, where the particles of common matter are always formed by inner surfaces, while the antimatter particles are formedy by outer surface of that foam. The spiral-like motion of both surfaces exhibits a mirror-like symmetry, i.e. helicity, as follows from the scheme bellow:

http://superstrun...ance.gif

The point is, these particles can be never of the very same stability and energy density, because the particles formed by inner walls of foam branes are having a slightly higher curvature and therefore the energy content, then the antimatter particles. Currently the vacuum foam consist of very thin walls, so that the difference is very subtle. It manifests only for smallest level of fractal foam (neutrino and axion particles).

But at the high energy state the vacuum foam becomes turbulent and formed by very small bubbles of large curvature, where the surface gradients are separated considerably (for example inside of dense stars or at the very beginning of Universe formation).

http://superstrun...ent2.jpg
http://superstrun...foam.gif

Inside of such foam the difference between matter and antimatter particles is substantial, and the antimatter particles would evaporate much faster into radiation, then the particles of matter.

This model explains both why we cannot detect the primordial antimatter well: during universe formation the matter-antimatter equillibrium was quite dynamic, so (nearly) no antimatter could survive in contact with ordinary matter.

And it explains as well, why the properties of matter and antimatter differs so slightly by now. This paradox is quite common in evolution: we should always consider the conditions in the past, not the current conditions, when trying to explain the present state by some equillibrium. For example, while the sponataneous formation of life appear inprobable under current conditions, at the very beginning of terraformation it could be a nearly spontaneous process.
Alexa
2.1 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2008
As I explained already, the traces of primordial antimatter can be found near giant black holes at the center of most large gallaxies. When the mixture of matter and antimatter is colled fast by fast removal of mixture from gravity field by radiative pressure, it enables some antimatter survive by the same way, like the particles of carbon can survive the candle flame, whenever this flame is cooled fast (flame sooting).

http://www.scienc...0830.htm

In adition, we should observe increased amount of antimatter inside of dark matter clouds, where it balances the parity of observable matter in the form of anti-neutrinos, axions and other ligthweight particles. Of course, here are number of other mechanisms, how to explain the presence of small amounts of antimatter inside of galaxies.
deatopmg
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2008
comments being truncated again!
Alexa
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2008
Black holes are pretty interesting stuff in connection to "missing antimatter" problem, if we realize, the black hole can swallow both matter, both antimatter particles without difference (the gravitons are supersymmetric particles of itself). AWT considers the common black holes as a dense neutrino stars, composed of neutrinos and antineutrinos, which are repelling mutually and the can pass through event horizon partially, when the black hole becomes larger. Maybe part of missing antimatter remains hidden inside of primordial stars - it just cannot escape so freely. This hypothesis can be tested by comparison of neutrino and antineutrino flux from quasars and lightweight black holes.
Alexa
2.6 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2008
comments being truncated again
You can use the rank filter feature above to disable it. Or you can vote my posts as "highly valuable", indeed...;-)
physpuppy
3.5 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2008

My question is would antimatter behave in EXACTLY the same way as matter, or are there subtle differences between the two that would say prevent stars from burning "normally" or are there predictions of gravity acting differently amongst large bodies of anti-matter?


The consensus is that antimatter should be gravitationally attracted to matter but it hasn't been tested. Check out:

http://cat.inist....afficheN&cpsidt=20182351

That would be interesting and raises an interesting question in my mind - if gravity uses an exchange particle (graviton) to transmit its field, would it interact with an anti-graviton?

Here is another good article on this topic:

http://math.ucr.e...all.html

As far as other differences go:
There are some subtle differences in the weak force - whether that affects the nuclear processes that go on in a star, I don't know: If you want to look the topic up, the topic is "CP symmetry violations" (CP = Charge Parity) where a couple of particles (they discovered certain K and B mesons) have probabilities of decay that are slightly different if they decay as the particle or the antiparticle (they are freaky - they are both particle and antiparticle art the same time. But they have a slight preference...

Here is a link to some nice notes on the subject:
http://kicp.uchic...e_07.pdf

Wiki:

http://en.wikiped...symmetry

http://en.wikiped...symmetry

zbarlici
3 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2008
If you are dropping a link to another website you notic it doens`t work. Head over to tinyurl.com, and have the hyperlink shrunk. Just google "tinyurl"
Question
3.3 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2008
March 21, 2008%u2014Scientists have detected an interstellar explosion so bright that it was briefly visible to the naked eye%u2014from 7.5 billion light-years away.
- - - - - - -
The bursts are the most brilliant occurrences in the universe after the big bang. GRB 080319B's afterglows, for instance, shone 2.5 million times more intensely than the brightest supernova on record.

Could these super gamma ray burst be proof of antimatter? What other source of energy can explain the biggest one?

http://news.natio...ect.html
http://www.iunive...00037539
physpuppy
3.8 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2008
Thanks zbarlici - here is the first link concerning gravity and anti-matter:

http://tinyurl.co...-gravity

If you are dropping a link to another website you notic it doens`t work. Head over to tinyurl.com, and have the hyperlink shrunk. Just google "tinyurl"
Alizee
Oct 30, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Oct 30, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Question
3 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2008
Does negative refraction really exist? All appear to be nothing more than "wave guides" for higher frequencies of electromagnetic radiation.
GoodElf
3.5 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2008
IMHO if we should use the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation of antimatter which says antimatter is simply matter traveling backwards in time and is the "twin" of it's own dual particle traveling forward in time. The difference in these two directions being relatively "arbitrary". At the instant of the Big Bang at T =0 there was no time in "our" universe before this point... then all the matter in "our" Universe "went forward" in time while all the antimatter particles (... of which 50% of everything was!!) went "relatively" backwards with respect to that "forward moving" time to before the instant of the Big Bang T=0... which was our mutual universal Creation event... into a parallel Universe that has become separate and now exists alongside of our Universe as a near perfect twin. The direction of time in that Universe is not an impediment of that Universe being equivalent in all internal respects to our Universe including all the laws of Physics. Indeed it would not be possible to tell from within these Universes which one was going "forward in time" and which one was going "backwards in time"... It's all "relative" you see... and we only think "we" are moving along the positive time line because of a preference for the ve sign rather than the -ve sign in equations. Notice how leading positive signs are dropped off our equations while negative signs must always be included... Mathematical anthropomorphism!

We see this same phenomenon happening today whenever we make matter and antimatter from pure energy by "Sparking the Vacuum".

Relative to our Universe "today" this parallel Universe is separated from us by being contained in a compact separate dimensional space or conjugate "bubble"(like a particle) embedded in the "original" four dimensional spacetime that spawned both of our Universes and we no longer have direct access to being trapped in our own compact dimensional space. To travel into that other parallel dimensional space we would need to time travel back to the big bang "first" and that epoch is a very long way away in time and we would probably become annihilated along the journey before we reached there (...like most of the present day antimatter forming spontaneously today in our Universe it is usually annihilated within a very short time). The antimatter particles are duals of our matter particles moving backwards in time.. see the linked image.

Any present day antimatter needs to "time travel" all the way back to the "Big Bang" to be "safe" from annihilation. Of course at the time of the Big Bang all these particles needed only to "time travel" a brief instant in time into the past to be "before it's own creation". Most of the matter that was forming in conjugate pairs simply spontaneously dimensionally separated "saving" both of our Universes from mutual self destruction.

The symmetry of time is reinforced in all quantum mechanical descriptions of "events" and was an implicit part of the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory (the precursor theory to Feynman's Nobel Prize winning QED Theory). This principle is also implicit in all Feynman Diagrams used universally in modern particle physics.

Definition of the Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation...
http://medlibrary...retation

Illustration of how a particle might time travel from the future into the past using the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation of antimatter...
http://members.op...avel.GIF
Blue lines are photons, A,B,C are electron positron electrons respectively. Electron A at time [T=1, S= 1.5] time and space travels as particle B to [T=0, S=2] and then continues on as an electron... particle C. Notice there is no net energy input required to produce this time travel if some kind of "catalyst" was used. Naturally these time and space coordinates are not absolute but illustrative.
Alizee
Oct 30, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
yyz
2.7 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2008
Personally, I look forward to continuing searches of such interacting galaxy clusters like MACS J0025.4-1222, Abell 520, Abell 1201 and others within range so that detailed Xray-optical-IR observations can be made to decipher this intriguing question. I hope other suitable candidate clusters are now being observed or are planned to be surveyed!
Alizee
Oct 30, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Oct 30, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
yyz
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2008
Personally, I look forward to continuing searches of such interacting galaxy clusters like MACS J0025.4-1222, Abell 520, Abell 1201 and others within range so that detailed Xray-optical-IR observations can be made to decipher this intriguing question. I hope other suitable candidate clusters are now being observed or are planned to be surveyed !
physpuppy
3.8 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2008
Does negative refraction really exist? All appear to be nothing more than "wave guides" for higher frequencies of electromagnetic radiation.


Microwaves, where the effect was first seen, are lower frequency than light, if thats what you mean. Here is a link to an interesting article:

http://physicswor...nt/17398

It has been seen recently for materials in the optical wavelength region:

http://www.nature...247.html

http://www.engadg...e-index/

http://technology...816.html

jeffsaunders
3.8 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2008
The backward time traveling anti-matter is based on the theory that matter and time co-exists in a mutually entwined reality.

It has not been proven but is a commonly held belief which is conveniently forgotten from time to time.

If anti-matter does in fact travel backwards in time that will mean that time and normal matter are linked. And it is something that should be hard to forget. Yet it IS the prevailing theory and does get forgotten.

It in no way presupposes that the universe was in fact created by a fiery cataclysmic event. We could just as easily have matter and anti-matter being created all the time in equal quantities as appears to be happening anyway. And, this creation of matter/anti-matter may have been taking place since the beginning of time (which appears to be the case).

Just a matter of defining what is the beginning of time, or if there ever was in fact such a point.

Is the reverse time universe just as full of dark matter/energy as our universe?

Is there negative dark matter/energy?
Is there positive dark matter/energy?
Why do we think that there is such a large amount of non-baryon matter in the universe in the first place when protons, neutrons and electrons roaming free can behave in the same way?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2008
Matter=Time. And of course everything is linked. I mean, it's not linked it's just everything. And sad day for scientists, when they'll realize it's actually nothing.
deatopmg
1 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2008
more later
deatopmg
1 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2008
more truncated posts. I give up.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2008
If there was a bigbang then no universal theory is possible, so its funny that people who believe in a bigbang are trying to develop an universal theory. This is really funny.But if we say there was no bigbang, then your brain collapse. Or just like how physicians denied god while at the same time they are trying to become god. Don't get me wrong I don't believe in god also, but I don't believe in me either. Or lets say, as smart you 'scientists' think you are also that blind you are. Universe is blind also, it's just the question whether a dead object can be that smart.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2008
And if entropy in a black hole is maximal or zero(it actually doesnt matter), how the hell on earth you could ever think you can type out any sense about the absolute mess or total nothingness. I mean you scientists need to learn also other thinking skills that by now doesnt have a name, and maybe you'll be gaining a theoretical progress, not only explorational.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2008
If bigbang yes->then we are dead->so no theory
If bigbang no->we might be alive->theory possible but our brain collapse

This is by now the result of physical theory science.Now you choose the color of your further scientific process.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2008
Or lets say you explore antimatter or particles or something and you link it with something else and so on, but so what if that something still remain whatever to anything else except humans. Or how can you say that formula E=mxc is like whoa while you dont know what E,m and c is. Or I define ____
Alexa
1.8 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2008
..its funny that people who believe in a bigbang are trying to develop an universal theory...
For me is just a funny, people are still ACTIVELLY refuting to consider the big bang event as a phase transformation of Aether without single counterargument. Whereas the concept of droplet condensation is the most trivial example of formation of "something" from "nothing".
velvetpink
2 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2008
Man I bet that in next 30 years they will all realize that they were all wrong.But still without an answer.But I do agree, there will be so many newly defined things.;)
velvetpink
1.2 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2008
Maybe someday humans will claim they are those 'super' particles of the universe. Or maybe they are already trying to do so.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2008
Or lets take a case of particles. Let's take 0=zero particles, 1 part., 2.part, 3 part., and so on till infinity. And now we have a meaning in general. Zero particles has no meaning as also infinite number of particles has no meaning. So both borders of our perception in case of particles has no meaning. So if both borders of the 'sistem of particles' has no meaning than also particles makes no meaning toward the 'sistem of particles'. Now lets change or project those particles with words in the case of 'sistem of the universal theory'. If we have zero words it has no meaning, while on the other side the infinite words would also make no meaning. Now lets combine that. Words are particles no matter spoken or written. If we define 1 1=2, or 1 (1 1 1)=4 then yes we have a meaning. but it's a 'blind meaning'. Cause when we have infinite number of those defined particles together toward the end of the sistem 'no meaning' is getting bigger till it hits ' no meaning'. Now what that actually means? It means that if there is an explanation of the universal theory sistem its just simply impossible to set any kind of meaning to that sistem over its parts(in this case particles or words). Also if you think like-> the more exploration, theorisation of the universe the bigger is entropy in knowledge, and growing entropy means less meaning. Simple as that. So if there is an universal theory, it just must be that big, that its not worth a single spoken letter.Cheers.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2008
Or again with other words, even if there is an anti-matter or whatever kind of matter it surely does not have any kind of universal meaning. Only blind meaning or we could also call it fake human meaning.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2008
I think I should get a nobel prize for todays monologue. Maybe I did it, but it just wasn't defined.
earls
4.1 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2008
Or lets take a case of comments. Let's take 0=zero comments, your comments, and everybody else's comments. Zero comments has no meaning as also your comments has no meaning (cheezeburgers?). So both borders of our perception in case of your comments has no meaning. So if both border of the 'sistem of your comments' has no meaning than also comments makes no meaning toward the 'sistem of comments.' Now lets change or project those comments with words in the case of 'sistem of making sense.' If we have zero words it has no meaning, while on the other side your infinite words would also make no meaning. Now lets combine that. Your words are non-sense no matter spoken or written. If we define 1 1=2 or 1 (1 1 1)=4 then yes we still don't have any meaning. but it's a 'blind meaning.' cause when we have infinite number of those defined nonsensical comments together toward the end of the sistem 'no meaning' is getting bigger till it hits 'no meaning'. Now what that actually means?! It means that if there is an explanation of the universal theory sistem its just simply impossible for you to explain just what the hell you're talking about. Cheers.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2008
No offence man but you are just not 'smart' enough to understand what Im talking about. Maybe thats why you are also not smart enough to realize the universe.
earls
5 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2008
Don't worry, none taken.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2008
And yes man, bigger the 'knowledge'-> more 'stupid' humans. Thats also a proof of my theory.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2008
And it's actually not a theory its just an explanation of a fake human meaning. It took me 10 years to come here where Im able to describe the explanation.Just in case you wondered.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2008
And maybe thats why Einstein said human stupidity is infinite.And why did he said hes not sure about the universe?Haha. Thats why!My explanation!Cause he knew it that if you try to describe the universal theory with its particles than of course its infinite but then it means it has no meaning!Haha. You know what that means? Einstein knew you all wont realize but he just didnt wanna spoil the game. Man I think my brain potential is peaking.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2008
And I also reveal some other of his secrets. The roulette thing. But it's just that I hate the money, so Ill keep it for myself!He was 'smart', very 'smart'. But only for the humans. Maybe he would told you by now 'e=mxc but so what!'Haha. Damn give me a nobel prize so I can donate to the poor. What a day.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2008
Hey and keep rating me 1!Thats exactly what your knowledge is worthy!
Alizee
Oct 31, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Oct 31, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Oct 31, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Oct 31, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2008
Man there might be bosons and anti matter everywhere but the TOE will remain nowhere. ;)
tkjtkj
3.3 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2008
So, once again, let me pose my
question: If our universe
inflated to its approx present
size in a fraction of a second,
and if nothing can exceed the
velocity of light, how come we
are here first, to see the
incoming light that began its
travels 12 billion years ago?
I've asked this for a long time
and no-one seems ready to reply.
tkjtkj@gmail.com
velvetpink
1 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2008
Hey I will try! There was no big bang. So it did not inflated. I hope I answered your question.
Alizee
Nov 01, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Nov 01, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Nov 01, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Nov 01, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2008
Valvepink is zeno on acid, and only Alizee can understand him.

(earls; "Cheezeburgers!" LOL)
Alizee
Nov 01, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2008
Hey man hehe I might be but still if you dont understand my words man, then you dont understand anything...cheers man;-)
SmartK8
4.8 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2008
What is this ? A conference of the graphomaniacs or what ?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2008
Hehe man! Thats the end of the meaning man!
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2008
Hey man hehe I might be but still if you dont understand my words man, then you dont understand anything...cheers man;-)


Velvetpink, perhaps your right to this limited extent, if i have deciphered your replies correctly (which would be purely coincidental if I managed that);

To have knowledge of the universe would imply that the mind has encapsulated reality within the scope of its a-priori intellectual forms and modes of understanding so that knowledge of reality is a mental ordering of phenomenon rather than a reproduction of reality as such. Our 'known reality' is necessarily entangled with mental constructs and so includes conceptual artifacts not necessarily existent apart from thought.

Where your wrong (if I understand you) is that this does not imply that the mind is not operating or functioning on something apart from itself (not purely definitions); we can and do rationalize reality successfully.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2008
'we can and do rationalize reality successfully.' But you can't claim that. You dont know what reality is. Reality for you is not the same as any other reality. If you knew what reality is, you would also knew what universe is. Or let me ask you a question. Do you think E=mxc is a reality?Do you think mass is a reality? Do you think inches are reality? Do you think black holes are reality? Do you think bosons are reality? It's true that we are a part of a 'reality' but that doesnt mean we understands reality. And thats what I was talking about. In this universe you cannot universally define a single sistem over some of its part/s. And no matter you are observing the sistem or you are a part of the sistem. And yes, you got to define a sistem if you are looking for a meaning. So that means, you are looking for a meaning but you can't define it. And thats exactly what is happening.Im sorry my engish is bad but I guess good enough to get a picture;)
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
Or from another point of view I could tell you like this. The usage of math in physical theory is essential to make progress in defining parts of the universal sistem. But when you ask yourself about the meaning of the universal sistem I bet there is no math in it.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
Or, nothing we know is a reality, but agree that our knowledge is a part of a reality,but that knowledge is not some universal code, its just pixels, particles, carbon, sound and so on. And a part of something never realizes the whole something. Except humans still believe in that miracle. But only those who thinks they are 'alive'.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And why you believe is cause the entropy of whatever in your brain is rising with your increasing 'knowledge'.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
'Where your wrong' and there is also no right or wrong...its just what you choose. Maybe its worng for you but you are not universal yet my friend.
AdseculaScientiae
4.7 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2008
@velvetpink and Alizee

Don't you guys have jobs.. Or do you just like spamming nonsense in your employer's time?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
Man you just made the best answer possible. Spamming nonsense.Wow. I mean I just hope you are not 'a scientist'. And oh you don't know by now that 'to have a job' is the same as 'to kill the planet'?Man, you have so much to go through. Spamming nonsense.Wow. No offence man, but not that your IQ is low, it's that you don't have an IQ man.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2008
And you say humans could realize the universe hehe.Yeah my ass. Even if universe itself would told you the universal theory you would be claiming its spamming nonsense.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2008
And yes I will rate you 5,cause your type of humans are very valuable to me and my scientific process.Thanks.
AdseculaScientiae
3 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
@velvet

Nice conclusions about my IQ. That from a guy who thinks our planet is a living being. I guess your reality is indeed somewhat different of mine.

Have fun with your monologue here friend.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2008
'That from a guy who thinks our planet is a living being.' Hehe where did you get that from...
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And oh you don't know by now that 'to have a job' is the same as 'to kill the planet'?


velvetpink
1 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2008
Oh the less important thing you found out. English is not my first language but anyway if thats the only reply you scientists are able to produce then yea I am close to the perfection.;)
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And you know what!Its impossible to type out the universal theory with english language.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2008
Anyone can explain me why nothing when you add something to that nothing becomes like something thats not nothing anymore?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2008
Or how can you add something to nothing? I mean, how can you say you add something to nothing while you are adding something to nothing?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
I mean, how can that nothing be nothing if you can add something to that nothing? So is there like no line between something and nothing?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2008
And is there actually no process of adding?
earls
5 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2008
What's your problem?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And if there is no process of adding can anything be universally realized as something?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
My problem is that all everyone is saying consist of something, nothing and adding?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
So the universal theory cant be typed out right?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And if there is no nothing and adding than bigbang cant be the universal theory either cant string theory right?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And if there is no something, nothing and adding theories cannot be universally treated as an explanation of anything right?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (1) Nov 02, 2008
What is my problem?Hehe. I have a big problem. To project my problem to the red top pic of that page I don't see an antimatter my friend. I can't even decide if I see something or nothing. Can you define a mass of something if there is no line between something and nothing? Or if so isnt the mass useless to anything else except the theories who uses mass in their explanation? And if there is no universal mass and adding, do all the scientific questions and theories that involve mass in their explanation make sense to anything except their own purpose?
Alizee
Nov 02, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Nov 02, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
So it seems that not only that the meaning of the universe is in a 'bubble'. It seems that also our thinking is in a bubble. Now all that left are dead things. But if the is no line between something and nothing then we can predict that also dead things are in a bubble. So what we get is that there is no line between dead and alive. Looks like everything is in a bubble. But the bubble only have two choices. Inside of a bubble or outside of a bubble. But we already know that no cutting line in existence is possible. So there is no bubble. Is that good enough? For you to stop thinking about the universal theory?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
My dear friend. Scientist don't know what they are talking about. But the universal scientist do know that they don't know what they are talking about. And scientific method my friend is just a bad dream.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
If you think universe is 1 1 my friend then you are just dreaming, well it is 1 1 but it's just not 2.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And its amazing if you type down the phrase 'the universal theory'
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And it's also clear now that any kind of a theory can just be a part of the universal theory and never a whole. Actually it is a part from the universal point of view, no matter if its right or wrong.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And thats why theories doesn't necessarily fit together even if they seem both right. they might also not be logically connected,but they are 'one' anyway from the universal point of view. And of course there is no line between right or wrong if there is no cutting line in the universal existence. That means whatever you are thinking it doesnt matter to the universal point of view.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
Even 'cheezburgers' are a part of the universal theory. But its clear today that you dont completely understand cheezburgers. Considering the fatness in american population you don't even partly understand cheezburgers.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And if anything of yours survives until like somewhere in 2173 please put my nobel prize on my graveyard. Thanks.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And hey one last question. If you draw a graph with x and y on it, are there really x and y on it from the universal point of view?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And to conclude!You just can't speak for something you are not. Cheers!What a day. For me.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And you are definitely not god!
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
Looks like you scientists believe in god also. And maybe even in more stupid way than a religious idea. You believe that there might be a god in you.
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2008
I want what he's smoking.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
I must be the brightest dead thing currently living on the planet. Just in case if you havent heard about my existence by now.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And yes from the universal point of view all you can really be is bright. Now that makes sense. Brightness just gotta be the only universal theory component by now. Maybe we can think faster than the speed of light? If we can then light might not be moving anymore. Is that when we are dead? That we think too fast to be a alive?Good night.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And if you think about the entropy. The entropy needs no line between something and nothing to make any meaning in a bubble. So does that means that entropy is the second component of the universal theory? If so, what the relation between brightness and entropy could be? Now thats your homework! Ill come back later tomorrow and check it out.Good night.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And yes from the universal point of view all you can really be is bright. Now that makes sense. Brightness just gotta be the only universal theory component by now. Maybe we can think faster than the speed of light? If we can then light might not be moving anymore. Is that when we are dead? That we think too fast to be a alive?Good night.
This might also explain why we cant handle infinity, while dead things can without a problem. Like hey dont worry you will understand how to handle infinity when you die. I mean if I remember well, before I was born, I did handle the infinity without a problem. Ok now really good night.Im very very tired. But it was really nice sharing thoughts with you all.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
Hey another proof might be that the faster car you make the bigger is a chance you kill yourself.Right?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
Thats also why computers are gonna kill us! They think faster but they are not brighter!And if I take a look at the people theres no doubt that they already kill us!Good night.
Alizee
Nov 02, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
And why are we more afraid of the night then the sunshine? Cause we think faster at night? And if faster is also too much arent humans in general all afraid of thinking too much?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
scientific method my friend is just a bad dream
By Popper methodology every theory should be considered invalid, until no evidence is given. But such approach is completelly symmetrical: by predicate logic each negation of theory is another theory and as such it should be handled with the very same caution.

By such way, Poppers methodology itself supplies no relevant clue, which approach is correct or not. For example, the MM experiment is generally believed as a refusal of Aether theory. But such conclusion is just an intepretation of the orginal experiment - until now nobody realized aparently, such interpretation can be as wrong as well - it's a just another theory, which should be tested and confirmed independently.

so the whole universe is the evidence and we have no theory? why would we need a theory if we already have the evidence? also no way universe care about Popper methodology..
Alizee
Nov 02, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2008
to go further, arent humans in general afraid of the death? is maybe one of the universal meanings to solve infinity problems in all the dead living things who evolve into too complicated structures with infinity problems? if so, then speed is the third component. but speed is not just speed.it needs brightness and entropy. so now that make sense. good night.
velvetpink
4 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2008
From AWT follows, every concept has its own limits and validity scope, the so called scientific method is no exception. While the historical significance of scientific approach is undeniable, we are gradually facing its natural limits: it's just a mainstream proponents, who is hindering the consideration of new ideas by now!

For example, what the heck is principially wrong on the particle concept of vacuum? If we have no relevant objection against it, what prohibits us to deal with it seriously? The medieval thinking of people is still demonstrating its true power: even intelligent people, when facing new ideas are changing into primitive superstitionists suddenly.

man just a tip. you gotta stop thinking about what you know.you should start thinking about what you dont know.
Alizee
Nov 02, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2008
Because you don't know anything man. I don't see a reason too man, anywhere, cause maybe there is no reason. Anyway, to go on with my monologue. There are no infinities,not universally nor imaginary, cause if there was infinities there would be no brightness, no entropy and no speed. So what we have now is three components and no infinities.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2008
Just reading about that aether man. Of course there is aether, there is always something somewhere. But that aether is not the universal theory. Just like bigbang is not , and a string theory. So those things doesn't matter anyhow. And also black matter and stuff like that. Thats just not important for the universal theory.
velvetpink
1.5 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2008
You should be looking for the meanings man, not for the reasons. Cause if you are looking for the reasons then only god can be your last station. But of course there is no god if there are no bubbles. But if you wont find any meanings man, then you know thats it. The universal theory with three components, no meanings and no infinities.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2008
On a first sight no meanings and no infinities doesnt fit together well but after some deep thinking looks like they fit perfectly together.
Alexa
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2008
if there was infinities there would be no brightness
Why not? By AWT we are formed by infinitelly tiny fluctuations of infinitelly large Universe. The ratio of two infinities is finite value - so we can see at least something from it.
hat aether is not the universal theory
Nobody says, it is. It's just a bit more general, then the existing theories - no less, no more.
AdseculaScientiae
4.7 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2008
I want to congratulate velvet with his newbie postrate per day record!

*Gives velvet a lollypop and shoos him away*
GoodElf
4 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2008
This discussion has wandered far from scientific theory into pure speculation. All right... lets have a quick speculation...

All truly great ideas have "humble beginnings". Were the ancients "wrong" to worship Gaea who is one of the primal "elements" that arose from chaos and created order through "her" self organizing abilities? They thought so much of "her" they symbolized "her" as "The Key". The original Oracle at Delphi was dedicated to Gaea and it only later in it's decadence became the abode of Apollo. "She" was consulted for a knowledge of the future. To me this is now symbolically the role of Science as we ask the Universe to reveal it's secrets through our "sacrifices"... our experiments. The most pleasing of "sacrifices" to Gaea reveal the greatest insights into our collective future.

IMHO "I" think the Earth is a "living being" and I think our Universe is a living being as well. Why? Because it has us and other living beings in it as part of a self sufficient whole. The Gaea Hypothesis "works".
http://en.wikiped...pothesis
You can take any living system... For instance your bodies are made entirely of inanimate matter mostly water calcium and a number of organic molecules in "suspension"... there are also quite a few cells that we think are "alive"... Some of these cells are "human" and also quite a lot of them are "not so human or only partly human" but on which we are entirely dependent for our bodily survival. You may not like the idea that other "sub-human" species of creatures are responsible for your survival and you treat them as "parasites" but it is a fact that we need them as much as we need those "other" cells every bit as much as the ones we call "human". We exhibit this same unconscious disdain for everything in our world that is "the other" and we can't recognize that all living creatures share a common bond through our "common" genes and in the entire cosmos they are the only "close relatives" we actually have. Take those "others" away and we die... Capisci?

At an even larger scale, we as an entire species, are critically dependent on the ecosystem of the Earth being in a dynamic balance, the right temperature and the right ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide and nitrogen with a non-toxic level of radiation and it is a system that "struggles" for that balance to maintain a stasis in the living conditions on the Earth's surface (not necessarily with a view to maintaining only "human life"). It has all the common characteristics of the way we individually "struggle" to exist if we were able to consider this as an organism (...of course that is part of the problem). Humans may think they are important but we are all dependent on that homeostasis "struggle" within our ecological system being successful every day for our lives and for the thousands of collective human lives going far back in Geological History, your are the result of a single unbroken linage that selected you among all other competing strands to live while all others died but is there a naturalistic philosophical reason why?

Despite our collective attempts to destroy that balance with our "cancerous attitudes" to ourselves and other species by spreading, pillaging and growing "out of control" within a limited and finite resource... our Earth... we actually "cling to life on this planet by a fine thread".

There is considerable though disputed scientific evidence for the idea of Gaea but there is no proof of a personal G*d anywhere. Most North Americans and Australians believe in a personal G*d!! The IQ of people fails them when they do not want to look at "evidential based experimenal results" and prefer their "gut feelings" driven by human mortality or their exaggerated "authority" based solely on human hubris. It does not take a "wizard" to be able to laugh at others when our group supports "a pack attack". Groups of people self congratulating themselves in "hunting packs" or allowing the leader of the "pack" to decide the common good thinking that by "voting" on what they want to find as "laws" in the world they are in someway binding on the founding Principles of the Universe... I don't think so... No one can repeal the Law of Gravity and any other laws of the Universe and the real matters that concern "our long term collective future" probably does not depend on what is decided in a Court of Law or on the floor of a Stock Exchange. So spare a moment's thought for the future of our race and realize it may not have a future if we do not keep our mind continually on what is happening around us.

The "problem" with Gaea is "she" does not specifically care about humans and that should be of some concern to all denizens of Earth. "She" is not anthropomorphic enough to have a warm cuddly feeling about but "she" is the only "real mother" that continues to assist us through our lives (excepting those "withdrawals" competing for "first prize" in the Darwin Awards). We can't blame "her" for our political messes and we can't make "her" do our bidding. Humans may be a brief "flash in the pan" and it remains to be seen if that the only advantage we have going for us (our wits) are sufficient to preserve us as a species for the very long term. So far we have barely "passing grades" but as our numbers increase without limit I think we are going to "fall below the line" in the race for survival. At some point... perhaps a "tipping point" from which there may be no return... our "mother" will throw this "baby" out with the polluted bathwater to try and preserve this overall system. Life will continue but without the intricate "supporting web of life" we require for our continued good health. It may mean that we might be required to remove ourselves from the shallow end of the "gene pool".

If you do not have the experimental support for a theory then it is certainly scientifically "nuts". If it has experimental support it has at least "something going for it" and that can be identified as a kind of incomplete "Truth" that depends on how we ask our questions of the Universe. Dumb questions lead to dumb answers and only the most cleaver questions we can ask of the Universe, through our experiments, can result in answers that can lead to a deeper and more meaningful insight. Many civilizations before ours disappeared at their height... as did many species such as the dinosaurs, ammonites and the Trilobites. The Romans also disappeared from the Earth at their "apogee", there are no Romans left in Rome today... they were all "wiped out" mercilessly. "The End" snuck right up on them at the very height of their extensive "conquests" and they were "wiped out" to the last man woman and child. There is more Roman Blood in Britain today then there is in modern Italy. The higher a civilization flies the faster it falls. Until people have more than just "hollow mockery" to offer the thinking reader and considering to play the ball not the man... I go with Gaea!
Alexa
3 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2008
..lets have a quick speculation..
Due the excessive brevity, I haven't got a main point of your idea - can you extend it in more detail at least a bit, please?
velvetpink
1 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2008
'has wandered far from scientific theory into pure speculation.' Im sorry but, thats not true. Scientific theory is a pure speculation too my friend. Except the newly defined things with the scientific process, but for those we(at least I) already know that they don't matter to any universal theory.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2008
I want to congratulate velvet with his newbie postrate per day record!

*Gives velvet a lollypop and shoos him away*


Man dont worry you are universal too.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2008
'if there was infinities there would be no brightness' And if you don't understand this then you have no basic IQ required to realize anything universal. But to help you a bit lets say if there were infinities there would also be no entropy and speed. And I already explained why not so dont ask stupid questions again.
velvetpink
1 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2008
I want to congratulate velvet with his newbie postrate per day record!

*Gives velvet a lollypop and shoos him away*


And man maybe universe is a lollypop but if so what could be a stick?
Alexa
3 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2008
...dont talk about Universe cause you dont know a single word about Universe...
versus
you gotta stop thinking about what you know.you should start thinking about what you dont know
:-)
Quantum_Conundrum
4 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2008
I realize that when two galaxies "collide" the chances of two stars actually colliding are vanishingly small...but MAN what a "big bang" that would be if two 80ish solar mass stars hit with one being matter and the other being anti-matter. Of course there would be some interaction of the interstellar medium...

My question is would antimatter behave in EXACTLY the same way as matter, or are there subtle differences between the two that would say prevent stars from burning "normally" or are there predictions of gravity acting differently amongst large bodies of anti-matter?



First of all, I quite disagree with the mainstream interpretation of what would happen in a Galaxy scale collision.

The consensus has been that interstellar distances are so great that most of the stars would pass by one another without collisions. But this simply does not add up.

Imagine if you doubled the average density of stars in the neighborhood of the Sun, simulating two milkyway type galaxies in a head on collision moving 180 degrees relative to one another, and simulating a direct hit such that each galaxies spirals overlap.

In the core of each galaxy, two SMBH pass literally within a few light years of one another, and should fall into one another's event horizons.

In the arms of the spirals, the average density of matter in interstellar space is doubled. The probability is very high that stars will greatly perturb one another's orbits and even trap one another, even if they are not on a pure "straight line collisions course". A star coming in from the other galaxy would gobble up huge amounts of left over interstellar matter, including oort clouds and nebulae, and generally completely disrupt the gravitational balance of the stellar neighborhood that it passes through. Scale that up 400 billion times, and you have a wrecked galaxy, most of which will collapse into a SMBH at the merger point of the disks.

====

On the anti matter star question.

Lol. 80 sol of matter 80 sol of anti-matter.

Wow. That is an obscene amount of energy.
sol sol = 1.8*10^47 Joules (larger than any gamma ray burst)

80 sol 80 sol = 1.44*10^49 Joules. (100,000 times larger than any gamma ray burst.)

That's enough energy to potentially eject millions or even billions of stars from the host galaxy. It would probably be one of the biggest explosions in the history of the universe, because that is 5 orders of magnitude larger than a gamma ray burst. The host galaxy would probably be wrecked leaving nothing but an SMBH and stars ejected in every direction becoming rogue stars.

Wikipedia
There is some evidence which suggests that the jet angles and apparent energy released are correlated in such a way that the true energy release of a (long) GRB is approximately constant%u2014about 10^44 J,


Which suggests that no matter-anti matter collisions larger than about 1/100000th of that scale (i.e. two objects each 1/1000 of the size of the sun) are taking place anywhere in the universe, that is if any are taking place at all.


In other words 1/1000th Sol of matter 1/1000th Sol of anti-matter is enough to make the largest explosions ever recorded in the history of the universe.

80 Sol 80 Sol would potentially destroy entire galaxies, certainly the host galaxy.
velvetpink
2 / 5 (3) Nov 03, 2008
Hey I am really nervous.Cause I still dont get it.