Experiments offer tantalizing clues as to why matter prevails in the universe

Aug 16, 2010

A large collaboration of physicists working at the Fermilab Tevatron particle collider has discovered evidence of an explanation for the prevalence of matter over antimatter in the universe. They found that colliding protons in their experiment produced short-lived B meson particles that almost immediately broke down into debris that included slightly more matter than antimatter. The two types of matter annihilate each other, so most of the material coming from these sorts of decays would disappear, leaving an excess of regular matter behind.

This sort of matter/antimatter asymmetry accounts for the fact that just about all the material in the universe is made of the normal matter we're familiar with. The results are being published this week in papers appearing simultaneously in the APS journals and Physical Review D.

Physicists have long known about processes described by current theory that would produce tiny excesses of matter, but the amounts the theories predict are far smaller than necessary to create the we observe. The Tevatron experiments suggest that we are on the verge of accounting for the quantities of matter that exist today. But the truly exciting implication is that the experiment implies that there is new physics, beyond the widely accepted Standard Model, that must be at work. If that's the case, major scientific developments lie ahead.

The results emerge from a complicated and challenging analysis, and have yet to be confirmed by other experiments. If the matter/ imbalance holds up under the scrutiny of researchers at the in Europe and competing research groups at Fermilab, it will likely stand as one of the most significant milestones in high-energy physics, according to Roy Briere of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. Briere summarizes the experimental results and their implications in a Viewpoint article in the current edition of APS Physics.

Explore further: Thermoelectric power plants could offer economically competitive renewable energy

More information: physics.aps.org/

Provided by American Physical Society

4.8 /5 (53 votes)

Related Stories

Physicists testing Nobel-winning theory

Nov 13, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Soeren Prell and a team of Iowa State University researchers are part of an international research team testing a theory that led to a share of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physics for Japanese researchers Makoto ...

New Experiments Will Shed Light On Matter And Antimatter

Jul 22, 2004

If the laws of physics were precisely the same for matter and antimatter, you wouldn't be reading this. All matter, as we know it, would have been converted into light after the Big Bang. To explore the fundamental differences ...

Could dark baryons explain dark matter?

Jul 20, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- "The prevailing belief about dark matter particles is that they should be about 100 or more times heavier than protons," Subir Sarkar tells PhysOrg.com. "However, we were thinking about the possibility of lig ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 103

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2010
"But the truly exciting implication is that the experiment implies that there is new physics, beyond the widely accepted Standard Model, that must be at work."

Ok. To take this statement at face value, I have to know what the "new physics" implies.
TabulaMentis
not rated yet Aug 16, 2010
Anyone have a good idea of what those new physics may be beyond the accepted Standard Model?
String theory/M-theory/Loop-quantum Gravity I know will be the popular answer, but I am looking for other theories, particles, etc..
Pyle
2 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2010
There isn't sufficient evidence that the universe isn't just background noise, so don't get too excited yet. Wait, did I say the universe? I meant the apparent results of the experiment in the article.
And the search continues for why this universe.
otto1923
5 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2010
Anyone have a good idea of what those new physics may be beyond the accepted Standard Model?
String theory/M-theory/Loop-quantum Gravity I know will be the popular answer, but I am looking for other theories, particles, etc..
Hey! I bet jigga knows! Lets ask him-
Mr_Man
not rated yet Aug 16, 2010
I would like to know how the B-Meson broke down into more matter than anti-matter and how common that is with other particles? Are there particles that break down with greater amounts of anti-matter leaving an anti-matter surplus?
DoubleD
Aug 16, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Pyle
3 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2010
Just because we can't detect any aether, doesn't mean there isn't any aether. Leave our multiple personality inflicted entertainment alone. I find his posts enlightening and thought provoking. His alternate universe, although not shared by most of us, gets me thinking at least.

Oh, and Mr. Man, don't start looking for a CP violation in the wrong direction. You might end up like God after he created the Babel Fish.
Xaero
1 / 5 (11) Aug 16, 2010
Anyone have a good idea of what those new physics may be beyond the accepted Standard Model?..
QCD cannot explain the discrepancy between matter and antimatter at all, Standard model includes CP violation through QCD Lagrangian and weak force, which explains only small portion of CP violation. You're not required in aether theory to explain it, concept of quantum foam is enough.
.Just because we can't detect any aether, doesn't mean there isn't any aether..
Massive scalar Higgs field doesn't differ from aether so much. Some theories consider, universe is formed with interior of black hole - again, this model is pretty close to dense aether model, because interior of black hole is always formed with dense matter. Etc...
Xaero
1 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2010
..how the B-Meson broke down into more matter than anti-matter and how common that is with other particles?
The violation of matter-antimatter asymmetry would be the more pronounced, the higher or lower is the mass/energy density. B-mesons are heavy and massive particles, they're oscillating between flavors like neutrinos, for which such asymmetry was observed, too. It's evident, the physics of most massive particles is surprisingly similar to physics of these most lightweight ones.

In my theory the particles are nothing else, then more dense clusters of vacuum foam, which gets more dense after introduction of energy in similar way, like soap foam during shaking. Every foam is formed with bubbles separated with membranes with at least two surfaces, along which the energy waves are spreading. I'm assuming, the particles are formed with waves, which are spreading along internal sides of foam membranes, whereas the particles of antimatter are formed with vibrations of outer sides.
Xaero
1 / 5 (11) Aug 16, 2010
In sparse foam the membranes separating bubbles are thin and their surface gradients doesn't differ with curvature of space-time very much. In thick foam full of energy the situation is different, though. Vacuum foam is forming small round bubbles from perspective of human observer, and the difference between stability of matter and antimatter becomes apparent there.

This behavior makes cosmological explanation of matter abundance somewhat tricky, because the current generation of particles and antiparticles doesn't differ very much in their properties. The theories based on properties of common particles therefore cannot explain the abundance of antimatter so easily. For relevant explanation we should consider hot & dense state of Universe briefly after Big bang, when properties between matter and antimatter differed significantly.
danman5000
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 16, 2010
Anyone have a good idea of what those new physics may be beyond the accepted Standard Model?
String theory/M-theory/Loop-quantum Gravity I know will be the popular answer, but I am looking for other theories, particles, etc..
Hey! I bet jigga knows! Lets ask him-


Aether blah blah blah... peer reviewed blah blah blah... quit picking on me blah blah blah. wah wah wah blah blah blah

Prediction confirmed.
Question
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2010
Quote from article: "They found that colliding protons in their experiment produced short-lived B meson particles that almost immediately broke down into debris that included slightly more matter than antimatter."

Wouldn't one normally expect to find a slight excess of matter over antimatter when conducting experiments using matter?
Xaero
1 / 5 (11) Aug 16, 2010
Wouldn't one normally expect to find a slight excess of matter over antimatter when conducting experiments using matter?
Actually yes - it's manifestation of anthropic principle and/or "simillia simillibus observantur" principle. The object formed with bubbles of negative curvature will interact with another bubbles preferably. In this way the antiparticle bubbles will be dispersed with fluctuations of vacuum, which are of slightly negative curvature, too.

But it still doesn't explain, why just two forms of matter exist here, and why they differ in their properties in so complex way. Foam model provides some testable predictions, too - for example it explains cumulation of dark matter around black holes and inside of streaks of dark matter.

http://www.centau.../?p=1667

For me is somewhat surprising, why people who are talking about fabric of space and/or quantum foam never used this concept in its intrinsic, geometric way.
yyz
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2010
"it explains cumulation of dark matter around black holes and inside of streaks of dark matter.

http://www.centau...7"

Your link is discussing a possible source (LMXBs) of particles that are responsible for our detection of electron-positron annihilation radiation (the 511 MeV line) observed in the central part of our galaxy. What's that got to do with dark matter?

I see you use the phrase "dark matter streaks" frequently. Could you clarify that?
Xaero
1 / 5 (12) Aug 16, 2010
We can met with the CPT asymmetry even in human society at many places. For example, capitalism and communism are two dual socio-economical structures, analogous to matter and antimatter. But because capitalism concentrates capital, wheres communism tends to disperse it and you cannot base human society on dispersion of capital from long perspective, inside of stable society the capitalism always wins the competition. We can follow it by date of day of tax freedom, which defines well the ratio of socialism and capitalism inside of particular country.

As another example can serve the Closed/Open source SW ratio on the free market and/or sex ratio in growing society. Because females are more social and they're actually doing children, they're slightly more frequent at the end of their life, too.
Xaero
1 / 5 (11) Aug 16, 2010
I see you use the phrase "dark matter streaks" frequently. Could you clarify that?
I'm calling dark matter streaks the subtle foamy structures of dark matter, which are of slightly negative surface curvature. As such they're expected to concentrate antiparticles, which are of slightly negative surface curvature, too.

http://asymptotia...tion.jpg
yyz
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2010
"As such they're expected to concentrate antiparticles, which are of slightly negative surface curvature, too."

Why wouldn't they concentrate particles, they have mass too.

Back to my first question...what's your link have to do with dark matter?
Xaero
1 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2010
We know, photon pairs are forming particle-antiparticle pairs inside of strong electromagnetic field. The strong gravity field has the opposite effect (up to certain level) and it dissolves the particle-antiparticle pairs into radiation. When photons are escaping from gravity field, they tend to condense into particles, which can be observed in black hole jets. But because the gravity field of black hole is of strong positive curvature, the particles of matter are attracted more to black hole, then the particles of antimatter (which are of slightly negative curvature) and they form a condensate cloud around it, i.e. galaxy. Whereas the antiparticle are forming the outer surface of galaxy, i.e. galactic halo. I presume, most of "missing antimatter" is actually hiding there.
Xaero
1 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2010
Because matter and antimatter react mutually under formation of large amount of energy (i.e. annihilation), we can compare the matter-antimatter mixture escaping the black hole to the mixture of of carbon particles and oxygen inside of candle flame. If this flame is cooled slowly, then the carbon has enough of time to react with oxygen quantitatively.

But if we cool flame fast, it will start to decompose back under formation of black soot - which condenses, whereas the oxygen escapes. In this way, I'm assuming, the observable matter was formed during fast cooling of quasars, which lead to condensation and separation of matter and antimatter. In analogous way, we can observe traces of antimatter around massive stars and or black holes, where fast cooling or radiation occurs. Actually the behavior of matter-antimatter equilibrium doesn't differ from chemical equilibrium and Le-Chatelier's principle, which is driving classical thermodynamics.
Xaero
1 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2010
..why wouldn't they concentrate particles, they have mass too...
They concentrating both, but antiparticles are preferred. Because antiparticles are formed mostly by positrons, some portion of protons and heavily ionized atom nuclei can survive inside of dark matter too. Their repulsive EM forces are in equilibrium with their gravity.

If black holes would be formed with singularities, then the highest curvature of space-time would exist just at the center of black holes. But we know, at the case of real massive bodies the space-time is actually flat just at the center. Therefore the gravity field around black holes (and large galactic clusters, too) has a bell shape profile with area of positive curvature at center. Whereas the outer zone is of slightly negative curvature and it exhibits a weak repulsive force, responsible for dark energy. Because of its negative curvature, it attracts and collects negatively curved particles of antimatter preferably. Does it all appear logical?
Pyle
5 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2010
Question, I don't understand the reply to your question, so I'll try.

Wouldn't one normally expect to find a slight excess of matter over antimatter when conducting experiments using matter?


The experiment is to collide protons with anti-protons. The experiment wasn't being "conducted" soley with matter. I believe the more appropriate question is whether the background noise found in the matter rich environment (unfortunate condition of being in our universe) isn't clouding the findings. The next step is to reproduce the findings and ensure that they are in fact the result of the CP violation and not some other phenomenon leaking in.

Vacuum bubbles aside, the question is, "Why this universe?" Scientists want an answer for why there is an abundance of matter in this universe. The current method is isolate the bias, then search for a root cause. The Standard Model hasn't been able to predict the bias in a verifiable way.

Yet.
Question
3 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2010
This article does not mention colliding protons and antiprotons. Even if that is the case, since no vacuum is 100%, the collisions would take place where there would still be a little more matter.
Xaero
1 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2010
Vacuum bubbles aside, the question is, "Why this universe?"
From sufficiently distant/high dimensional perspective all objects can be approximated by pin-point particles. The random density fluctuations are of hyperbolic unparticle geometry, like the density fluctuations inside of dense condensing gas (supercritical fluid in particular). If you don't like aether concept, you can think about space-time curvatures and/or gravitons, which exhibit weak properties of both matter (with positive curvature), both energy (with negative curvature). They're forming both smallest, both largest structures of observable reality observable. If we could slow-down time many bilion-times, we would see vacuum full of subtle fluctuations (microwave photons), similar to transparent hot air above camp fire.

Actually we can visualize them in certain extent for observation with naked eye, if we watch the surface of superfluid helium at few Kelvins temperature above zero. They're actually quite large.
Xaero
1 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2010
Wouldn't one normally expect to find a slight excess of matter over antimatter when conducting experiments using matter?
Electron and positron never touches mutually during their mutual annihilation. Actually I do believe, matter and antimatter would annihilate mutually via subtle gravitational waves at distance. Which brings the question: can we detect the antimatter character of some unknown matter without actually annihilating some? It's similar to observation of ice - you cannot actually detect its coolness without some heating of its surface and accelerating its melting in such way.

We can believe, the decomposition of B-mesons (a composite particles of quark and anti-quark) would be exactly balanced in completely empty universe. But because we're observing it, we're exchanging some subtle energy with it via gravitational waves, which are dissolving/annihilating the antimatter preferably. And because B-mesons interact at short distance only, this lost is significant.
Xaero
1 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2010
Some predictions could be tested during few years. For example we can ask, whether at some distant areas of Universe the antimatter galaxies cannot exist? Such galaxies could be detected at distance. For example, the galaxies which are not from our material universe are supposed to fail in creation of shadows on the CMB radiation, thus forming parallel universes effectively. Recent astronomical research did show us, that several galaxy clusters really do not produce a shadow at CMB radiation. http://arxiv.org/.../0510160

Even more fantastic would be detection of more antimatter types, which would annihilate mutually. We can expect, at remote areas of Universe the matter/antimatter symmetry will be broken in such a way, the matter of one galaxy would annihilate with matter of another galaxy at least partially. If such pieces would survive the travel through cosmic space required for their mutual contact, we could use them as a source of energy.
ggg
2.5 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2010
@question
I'm with you. Collide matter with matter in a matter environment and gee whizz, end up with matter.. Who would have ever thought?
The aether has as much physicality as space-time..
In other words not at all..
Space-time at least has mathematical basis (only) even if the philosophical actions are magically one way..
Pyle
4 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2010
Question, to address the first part of your statement. From the "source" article at physics.aps.org:
This means that they see pairs of positive muons, among the debris of their proton-antiproton collisions more often than they see pairs of negative muons.

Second part of your post is the whole "unfortunate condition of being in our universe" bit that I quote from an extremely clever previous poster (who thinks much too highly of himself given his substantially inferior intellect.)

Xaero, try as I might (and I do) I still can't get my arms around what you are trying to say. As long as you're convinced, I'll leave you to it.
eric96
5 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2010
To Pyle: Quantum physics is about the particles that are smaller than the atom. You need an atom smasher for that. It is known that when you smash an atom you get a bit more matter than antimatter. What is not known is the reason. The team is saying they think it is because the meson phenomenon is one of the most frequent occurences on the quantum scale (world), but not all occurences are known. To break it down, say after you smash the atom you get 100 matter and 98 antimatter (slighly more matter), the result is 2 matter since antimatter destroys matter. Have this phenonmenon occuring in quasi infinite numbers and that explains why our universe is made up of atoms and corresponding elements instead of antimatter. Conversily, if what was happening was 98 matter, 100 antimatter, output 2 antimatter, repeated quasi infinite = antimatter universe (no elements). You have to remember that the atom is allowed exist only because of the laws in the quantum world permit it to.
Pyle
not rated yet Aug 16, 2010
eric96,
I agree with most of your points, but will make a subtle distinction.

My understanding is that the bias towards matter (CP violation) in previously observed reactions/measurements did not explain the universe (big bang yada yada). The more recent results mentioned in this article, show a more biased reaction that could help better explain the matter rich universe we exist in. However, the finding is preliminary and outside causes of the matter rich results haven't been scientifically ruled out yet.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2010
@question
I'm with you. Collide matter with matter in a matter environment and gee whizz, end up with matter.. Who would have ever thought?
The aether has as much physicality as space-time..
In other words not at all..
Space-time at least has mathematical basis (only) even if the philosophical actions are magically one way..

Do you think there could be a relationship between dense aether theory and sub-Planck theory?
At scales that small math may become a problem.
MrPressure
Aug 17, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hodzaa
1 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2010
The aether has as much physicality as space-time..
In other words not at all..

I can understand and use the mathematical concept of space-time. But space-time cannot undulate, exhibit virtual particles, quantum foam and many other stuffs, which we are attributing physical vacuum. We are attributing such behavior to it artificially.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2010
@yyz
I see you use the phrase "dark matter streaks" frequently. Could you clarify that?


He means skidmarks. He's doing laundry.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2010
I can understand and use the mathematical concept of space-time. But space-time cannot undulate, exhibit virtual particles, quantum foam and many other stuffs, which we are attributing physical vacuum.
First, no idea what you're really saying but the pieces I've decrypted are inaccurate. Spacetime exhibits all characteristics of spacetime. You're trying to quantify a single entity as many entites without proof. Stop that.
We are attributing such behavior to it artificially.
All observations are merely a gamble. When one observes the universe the only resultant description will have to require the presences of the measuring devices used to formulate that description. There are no absolutes outside of measurement as existence doesn't exist without an observer.
Gawad
5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2010
This article does not mention colliding protons and antiprotons. Even if that is the case, since no vacuum is 100%, the collisions would take place where there would still be a little more matter.


Hi Question. Not all articles on Physorg are created equal. Try http://physics.ap...es/v3/69 for additional info. It clearly shows that collisons
took place between protons and anti-protons (and not between positrons and electrons as Jigga/Xaero and company mentions). Also note that even in cases where you collide only matter, it can convert to high energy photons that then decay into matter/antimatter particle pairs, so that's not too much of a problem. In any case, the researchers were looking at the decay products of the B-mesons produced in the collisions and noting an imbalance in those decay products. It doesn't really matter how you get the B-mesons in the 1st place. BTW, those chambers hold a pretty hard vaccuum.
Question
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2010
How can you just look at the decay of the B-meson? Since the B-meson has been shown to decay rarely in a different manner wouldn't all the decay products of the proton-antiproton collision need to be accounted for? Furthermore are B-mesons really a fundamental particle or a composite of several different more fundamental particles, quarks?

Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2010
How can you just look at the decay of the B-meson? Since the B-meson has been shown to decay rarely in a different manner wouldn't all the decay products of the proton-antiproton collision need to be accounted for?


Well, computers *are* used to account for all detected decay products and filter out the vast majority of collision results as these are rather mundane in the vast majority of cases. That's why they need so much data.

Furthermore are B-mesons really a fundamental particle or a composite of several different more fundamental particles, quarks?


This is pretty easy to look up, Question, but no, B-mesons aren't fundamental. They are a composit of a bottom anti-quark and another, positively charged quark (except for the Top as its lifetime is too short, and the Bottom, which makes another beast). So they are made up of both matter and antimatter to begin with, and some B-mesons oscillate into there own anti-particles billions of times before decaying.
panorama
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2010
nucleus of atoms getting bigger and tahts why nucleus of atoms exploding


I think this fully explains the article and all the existing questions relating to the Standard Model perfectly...
ArcainOne
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2010
The one thing that comes to mind when I read this article is,

"You know how big the big bang must have been! That was One BIIIIIIIIG Bang".

The question was posed way up top which makes me wonder... with quantum theory and M-theory supporting multiple dimensions and multiple universes and the sheer and absurd amount of energy that had to have been output from the big bang, you think that some of that anti-mater was shuffled off into another dimension creating an anti-matter universe?

Though I have heard a lot of crazy theories on the universe... so I guess nearly anything could be possible...
Question
3 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2010
Quote: "This is pretty easy to look up, Question, but no, B-mesons aren't fundamental. They are a composit of a bottom anti-quark and another, positively charged quark (except for the Top as its lifetime is too short, and the Bottom, which makes another beast). So they are made up of both matter and antimatter to begin with, and some B-mesons oscillate into there own anti-particles billions of times before decaying."

This is exactly what I do not understand, how can anything concrete be learned from the decay of a B-meson when you do not know what it is before it decays?

hodzaa
2 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2010
A simple objection against Big Bang hypothesis is, it's simply overdetermined. We know, we cannot observe older parts of Universe, then the speed of light allows, right? So how can we know, Big Bang occurred just fourteen billion years ago? Isn't it too big coincidence, that Universe is just as old, as the speed of light allows? If it would be older or it would expand faster, we couldn't observe Big Bang anyway.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2010
A simple objection against Big Bang hypothesis is, it's simply overdetermined. We know, we cannot observe older parts of Universe, then the speed of light allows, right? So how can we know, Big Bang occurred just fourteen billion years ago? Isn't it too big coincidence, that Universe is just as old, as the speed of light allows? If it would be older or it would expand faster, we couldn't observe Big Bang anyway.

Spoken like someone who is truly ignorant of cosmology.
KBK
not rated yet Aug 18, 2010
Well, there is always about a 100% chance that answers for unknowns are to be found in areas where you are not looking and don't understand.

Meaning..we need to stop pressing the old buttons of 'familiarity', and that by now:...we should psychologically do our best to understand do not work -and move on to unknowns. For if the attempts at connective tissue to bridge the gap with today's theory fail to reach the 'new', then it should not be surprising to us that those attempts are 'incorrect'.

One look at the 'surprising' research and 'surprising and unexpected' results that happen every day, now, it seems, in baseline physics (4% different mass on proton, for example) well.. these things (discoveries) illustrate this point ~quite clearly~.

The point to remember, is, when formulating questions to form answers into clarity (rule #1 in deductive reasoning):

"The more difficult and impossible the problem to solve, the more fundamental the mistake in the formulation of the question."

Gawad
5 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2010
how can anything concrete be learned from the decay of a B-meson when you do not know what it is before it decays?
It boils down to conservation laws. Particle decay modes are not purely, completely random. In other words, it's not magic. These decay modes are governed by probability and all original properties (mass/energy, momentum, spin, charge, etc.) must be conserved one way or another in the decay products. So you start just 4 possibilities and have a fixed set (if large) of possible decay product combinations. So you *can* work your way back to the original particle. If you really want to get into it:

http://pdg.lbl.go...ttom.pdf
http://pdg.lbl.go...ange.pdf
http://pdg.lbl.go...harm.pdf

The wonderful thing about this result is that it does not *quite* add up and points to new physics and to a solution to the matter/anti-matter asymmetry in the universe.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2010
The one thing that comes to mind when I read this article is,

"You know how big the big bang must have been! That was One BIIIIIIIIG Bang".

The question was posed way up top which makes me wonder... with quantum theory and M-theory supporting multiple dimensions and multiple universes and the sheer and absurd amount of energy that had to have been output from the big bang, you think that some of that anti-mater was shuffled off into another dimension creating an anti-matter universe?

Though I have heard a lot of crazy theories on the universe... so I guess nearly anything could be possible...

I have heard that the bang was not all so big in the very beginning. I guess it depends on which theory you like.
Caliban
not rated yet Aug 19, 2010
A question: if all observable matter in the universe is this left over, miniscule fraction of matter resulting from the resolution of ALL the matter/antimatter collisions as the energy of the Big Bang cooled and "condensed", then where is the energy of annihilation? Shouldn't it be many orders of magnitude greater than the energy equivalent of all the observable matter in the universe? Can the CMB actually represent enough energy to account for this annihilation energy?
Rohitasch
4 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2010
A question: if all observable matter in the universe is this left over, miniscule fraction of matter resulting from the resolution of ALL the matter/antimatter collisions as the energy of the Big Bang cooled and "condensed", then where is the energy of annihilation? Shouldn't it be many orders of magnitude greater than the energy equivalent of all the observable matter in the universe? Can the CMB actually represent enough energy to account for this annihilation energy?

The CMB started off as gamma rays.
A_Paradox
not rated yet Aug 19, 2010
All this discussion of the complexity and seemingly enormous variety of combinations of "fundamental" particles [or should that be "vibrations"?] is quite confusing. Simple minded me though wonders if the basic asymmetry underlying matter versus anti-matter is not smallwards versus bigwards. I understand the basic concepts of fractals and self-symmetry and power law relationships - well the really basic concepts anyway - but I see that in nature things can be similar at different orders of magnitude but not identical.

This is different from mathematical representations of fractals where, in principal anyway, there is always a potentially infinite supply of numbers at whatever scale you may choose. In nature, "as above so below" is never completely true. The separation at the start of our current universe - the inflation - was an elaboration of bigwards versus smallwards. This quasi dimension permeates space-time.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2010
The CMB started off as gamma rays.

No. The CMB started off as something else, we can only see the Gamma beginning of the CMB.
hodzaa
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2010
The CMB started off as gamma rays.

No. The CMB started off as something else, we can only see the Gamma beginning of the CMB.

Which else? Stop trolling, as Rohitash is right. The general belief by now is, CMB started as a gamma ray photons formed during Big Bang, which expanded heavily during inflation.

http://abyss.uore...oons.gif

Dense aether model considers, this perspective is dual with gravitational collapse of gravitational waves, formed during "formation" of universe, which exhibit blue shift, instead. It means, CMB is a dual mixture of gamma ray photons expanded and gravitational waves collapsed during inflation (gravitational waves are tachyons, so that their time arrow is reversed) in this theory. This scenario is supported with AdS/CFT duality of holographic model, too.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2010
Which else? Stop trolling, as Rohitash is right. The general belief by now is, CMB started as a gamma ray photons formed during Big Bang, which expanded heavily during inflation.

The CMB we've recorded most likely was Gamma, however, that doesn't mean we've recorded everything within the CMB. The LISA survey is looking for gravity waves originating from the CMB and prior.

Way to stay current.
TabulaMentis
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2010
Hodzaa:

"Dense aether model considers, this perspective is dual with gravitational collapse of gravitational waves, formed during "formation" of universe, which exhibit blue shift, instead. It means, CMB is a dual mixture of gamma ray photons expanded and gravitational waves collapsed during inflation (gravitational waves are tachyons, so that their time arrow is reversed) in this theory. This scenario is supported with AdS/CFT duality of holographic model, too."

Wait a minute! Please say that again!
TehDog
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2010
Oh dear, yet another alias for alizee et al.
Hodzaa:

"Dense aether model considers, this perspective is dual with gravitational collapse of gravitational waves, formed
[snipped]
Please, please, stop.
TehDog
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2010
TabulaMentis wrote
Hodzaa:

Dense aether model [snippety]
Wait a minute! Please say that again!

TabulaMentis, you're new here, I can tell.
Trust me me, exposure to Hodzaa/alizee and it's other aliases will fry your brain if you try to understand it. It's a troll of the highest degree, just walk over the bridge it's hiding under, and pretend it's not there. I'm gonna mix my metaphors, and advise you not to bite...
TabulaMentis
5 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2010
Hodzaa:

"Dense aether model considers, this perspective is dual with gravitational collapse of gravitational waves, formed during "formation" of universe, which exhibit blue shift, instead. It means, CMB is a dual mixture of gamma ray photons expanded and gravitational waves collapsed during inflation (gravitational waves are tachyons, so that their time arrow is reversed) in this theory. This scenario is supported with AdS/CFT duality of holographic model, too."

Can you provide me with links to support those claims?
Xaero
1 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2010
Indeed... In dense aether theory gravitational waves are superluminal and they spread through vacuum like sound waves at the water surface, i.e. like tiny noise, known as a cosmic microwave background. It means, no gravitational waves (in sense of harmonic perturbations of space-time) are really observable, only less or more periodic changes of intensity of CMB noise. And this is what was observed with GEO 600 observatory recently and interpreted with holographic model of Universe, too.

http://prd.aps.or.../e124009

In holographic theory the observable Universe is formed like projection of gravitational waves from surface of black hole, where we are living in. Such projection must be inherently superluminal, or it couldn't work at all.
Caliban
2.8 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2010
So, perhaps gravity itself is the resultant of the matter/antimatter annihilation -in other words, could gravity BE the Energy of Annihilation?

Or, alternatively, perhaps the Energy of Annihilation is the Vacuum Energy, and since it is many orders of magnitude greater than matter, this explains why vacuum energy continually inflates space? This would also imply that expansion would cease, at some point.

Just some thoughts.
Xaero
1 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2010
perhaps gravity itself is the resultant of the matter/antimatter annihilation
How... how did you get into it??
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2010
Xaero:

Without doing a lot of research, it seems to me that there could be a connection between dense aether theory and sub-Planck lengths.
Could that assumption be correct?
TabulaMentis
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2010
TehDog:

I see that Hodzaa and Xaero are the same person.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2010
So, perhaps gravity itself is the resultant of the matter/antimatter annihilation -in other words, could gravity BE the Energy of Annihilation?

Or, alternatively, perhaps the Energy of Annihilation is the Vacuum Energy, and since it is many orders of magnitude greater than matter, this explains why vacuum energy continually inflates space? This would also imply that expansion would cease, at some point.

Just some thoughts.

There are various forms of gravity, so your hunch could be correct.
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2010
perhaps gravity itself is the resultant of the matter/antimatter annihilation
How... how did you get into it??


Pure speculation, based on my (admittedly incomplete) understanding of general principle.
Xaero
1 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2010
there could be a connection between dense aether theory and sub-Planck lengths
I presume, Universe is infinite at all scales - both cosmological, both Planck one. There are some indicia of fourth particle generation, too.

http://www.newsci...ion.html
Xaero
1 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2010
perhaps gravity itself is the resultant of the matter/antimatter annihilation
How... how did you get into it??
Pure speculation, based on my (admittedly incomplete) understanding of general principle.
I'd concentrate attention to mirror matter instead instead of antimatter, being you.
TehDog
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2010
perhaps gravity itself is the resultant of the matter/antimatter annihilation
How... how did you get into it??
Pure speculation, based on my (admittedly incomplete) understanding of general principle.
I'd concentrate attention to mirror matter instead instead of antimatter, being you.


I think my brain is about to implode.
I have no idea what I've just quoted means.
TabulaMentis
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2010
I think I know what trolling means now because 90% of these blog statements are pure bull!
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2010
perhaps gravity itself is the resultant of the matter/antimatter annihilation
How... how did you get into it??
Pure speculation, based on my (admittedly incomplete) understanding of general principle.
I'd concentrate attention to mirror matter instead instead of antimatter, being you.


I think my brain is about to implode.
I have no idea what I've just quoted means.


@TehDog,

I'm afraid I have to agree with you.
Initially, I was speculating on what happened to all of the energy of annihilation, after the symmetry-breaking interaction between the primal matter/antimatter immediately following the big bang.

frajo
4 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2010
I think my brain is about to implode.
I have no idea what I've just quoted means.
Simply accept that it doesn't mean anything. At least not with respect to physics.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2010
I was speculating on what happened to all of the energy of annihilation
The Universe is expanding but not into space. Rather space itself is expanding. This stretches out the light that was released at the end of the Dark Era when light decoupled from matter. That is when the temperature of matter got low enough for the free protons to capture the free electrons and form atomic hydrogen. Before that light could only go very short distances before being absorbed by an electron.

Thus the initial temperature of the light of the CMB was NOT at the level of gamma rays. Matter was simply not that hot anymore. It was below the temperature of the Sun. For anyone that disagrees just take a look at the Sun. It is opaque for the same reason the early Universe was.

Since then the light released has cooled as it is stretched.

My own thought on this is that if light is pulled out to a longer wavelength by the expansion of space doesn't that mean that the light had to push space.

Ethelred
Xaero
1 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2010
..Thus the initial temperature of the light of the CMB was NOT at the level of gamma rays. Matter was simply not that hot anymore. It was below the temperature of the Sun.
This is just a speculation of yours, not supported with any source. For example here you can read clearly:

http://abyss.uore...c23.html

"Cosmic background photons have their origin at the matter/anti-matter annihilation era and, thus, were formed as gamma-rays."

During inflation the space-time expanded in 10E+40 :1 ratio. Only photons of gamma rays could obtain the final wavelength of CMB, i.e. 2 cm under such circumstances - it's trivial arithmetic.

You should continue in babbling about Hitler a Bible somewhere else, because you're expert in it - but physics is not a relevant subject for you.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2010
This is just a speculation of yours, not supported with any source. For example here you can read clearly:
In order for gamma rays to be distinguishable, the Universe would have to be cooler than gamma rays. He's absolutely correct through logical inference.
"Cosmic background photons have their origin at the matter/anti-matter annihilation era and, thus, were formed as gamma-rays."
Which was a time where the average temperature was bellow gamma.
During inflation the space-time expanded in 10E+40 :1 ratio. Only photons of gamma rays could obtain the final wavelength of CMB, i.e. 2 cm under such circumstances - it's trivial arithmetic.
And that same "trivial" arithmetic would show you that there is noise prior to the CMB, and as I said above the CMB isn't the end all of the Universal pictures we're going to see.

Your logic is self defeating. You may want to be a tad more humble when discussing physics.
Xaero
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2010
I'm just describing well established mainstream intepretation of CMB supported with links, sorry.

http://lcd-www.co..._01.html

"The CMB was born during the electron-positron annihilation, when photons finally became the dominant source of energy in the universe. Thus, the CMB was born as gamma-rays, and during expansion of the universe it cooled down and passed through many kinds of electromagnetic radiation."

If you have a better theory regarding the origin of CMB, feel free to provide its linked source as well. Or I will provide another and another links to qualified sources, supporting my view to demonstrate, how big troll you actually are. You have no chance with your silly BS'ing in the same way, like the Ethelred troll. The evidence is, what counts here.
AverageJoe
not rated yet Aug 22, 2010
I wonder if this matter/anti-matter ratio observance will have any affect on the theory of dark matter?
Xaero
1 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2010
AverageJoe: The matter/anti-matter ratio observance supports dense aether theory predicting antimatter character of dark matter (I don't know about any other theory predicting the same result, but it may exists).
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2010
AverageJoe: The matter/anti-matter ratio observance supports dense aether theory predicting antimatter character of dark matter (I don't know about any other theory predicting the same result, but it may exists).

That prediction is falsified.

Your above quote mining is ridiculous as it refers to the picture, not the CMB. I don't fault you greatly on that as it requires some mastery of English to read the material correctly. I'd recommend you get a direct professional translation before you try that again.

@AJ,

We're expecting symmetry break in order for us to determine why a zero energy universe exists. It's quite possible that mirror matter is the dominant reactant in higher energy collisions. Dark matteer et al. Dark energy is different, it is the seething energy of space-time. We're entirely unsure what it is.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2010
@AJ, I'd strongly recommend you read a bit of what Lawrence Krauss has done on the subject. Here's a good lecture by him, but be warned it is a 1 hour speech. http://www.youtub...vlS8PLIo

It very well describes dark matter and dark energy to a layman starting around 30 minutes and continuing on.
Xaero
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2010
That prediction is falsified.
LOL, can you provide some link supporting your stance? I can, as usually...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4124

http://news.softp...31.shtml
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2010
I'm just describing well established mainstream intepretation of CMB supported with links, sorry.


And not understanding them. You clearly don't understand the Dark Era during which Gamma Rays were unable to travel without being captured by ions.

What I posted was bog standard Big Bang theory.

Ethelred
Xaero
1 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2010
You clearly don't understand the Dark Era during which Gamma Rays


..."Fast forward 14 billion years as the universe continued to expand. That brilliant light that started as ultra-high energy gamma rays stretched into X-rays, was visible light at recombination, and has now stretched all the way to microwaves. That faint hiss of microwaves, with a temperature of 2.7 degrees above absolute zero (Kelvin), is the cosmic microwave background or CMB. ..."

http://antarctics...?id=1237

I've nothing to understand here. First provide the link, supporting your stance. I gave you three ones already. The strict adherence to sources is the only way, how to force out trolls from here.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2010
So if you want the trolls gone why are you still here.

http://en.wikiped...Universe

Primordial Era

The Primordial Era is defined as "-50 < n < 5". In this era, the Big Bang, the subsequent inflation, and Big Bang nucleosynthesis are thought to have taken place. Toward the end of this age, the recombination of electrons with nuclei made the universe transparent for the first time.


http://en.wikiped...Big_Bang

After about 379,000 years the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms (mostly hydrogen); hence the radiation decoupled from matter and continued through space largely unimpeded. This relic radiation is known as the cosmic microwave background radiation.


As I said Bog standard. And you will continue to get ones for the same reason as ever till you stop giving ANYONE multiple rank votes.

Ethelred
Xaero
1 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2010
Two American scientists, George Gamow and Robert Dicke independently predicted that very high temperatures must have existed at the time of the Big Bang. If so, the Universe would then have been filled with very high energy photons, initially in the form of gamma rays. As the Universe has expanded the radiation has become less energetic and would now be in the far infra red and very short wave radio parts of the spectrum. But this means that if one could place a thermometer in the space between the galaxies it would not read absolute zero but a value of a few degrees above absolute zero. This radiation is now normally called the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) but has had alternate names such as the Relict Radiation.

http://www.gresha...ntId=994

You see, now you have four links claiming, the CMB has started its existence as a gamma ray photons.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2010
Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs. I have been aware of that for decades.

The CMB is all from the time that the Universe became transparent. It CANNOT have been from before any more than we can see the center of the Sun. Which I pointed out in the first post.

I don't care what crap you post or what great sources you post that are about the time BEFORE the Universe became transparent because NONE of that matters. We can only see back to the beginning of transparency. This is inherent in the way light interacts with ions.

Just because I posted it doesn't make it wrong. I wasn't even talking to you as you are a waste of time. I am only posting now to clear up the erroneous statements you made about my posts.

The initial temperature of the CMB MUST have been the temperature when both the hydrogen and the helium ceased to be ionized. Which is WAY below the temperature needed to for gamma rays.

Ethelred
Xaero
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2010
I have been aware of that for decades.
Then I don't understand, why you and Skeptic Heretic opposed the stance Rohitasch , Aug 19, 2010, that CMB started off as gamma rays.

All my four citations are claiming it clearly. Should I consider it as another manifestation of negativism and tendency to oppose at any price?

So, has the CMB started its existence as a gamma ray photons - or "not"? If you say not, you'll get another links claiming the opposite, until your trolling will not become quite apparent.
TabulaMentis
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2010
Xaero:

To the best of my knowledge, unlike you, Ethelred and Skeptic Heretic only blog under one name.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2010
@ Ethelred:

"The Universe is expanding but not into space. Rather space itself is expanding."

The Big Bang and Cyclic Universe theories do not explain what the universe is expanding into.

I love it when people say the universe can from nothingness or that time and space began with the Big Bang.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2010
The Big Bang and Cyclic Universe theories do not explain what the universe is expanding into.
Actually yes they do.
I love it when people say the universe can from nothingness or that time and space began with the Big Bang.
It can as we've determined that the Universe has a net zero energy. Basically it can come from nothing as the total sum (as we observe it now) is nothing.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2010
The Big Bang and Cyclic Universe theories do not explain what the universe is expanding into.
Actually yes they do.
I love it when people say the universe can from nothingness or that time and space began with the Big Bang.
It can as we've determined that the Universe has a net zero energy. Basically it can come from nothing as the total sum (as we observe it now) is nothing.

Skeptic Heretic:

What is the universe or multiverse expanding into?

And what do you say when people say: "From nothing comes nothing?"
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2010
What is the universe or multiverse expanding into?
The 11th dimension.
And what do you say when people say: "From nothing comes nothing?"
I say they're right. From nothing comes nothing, but that doesn't mean that in creating more nothing, something doesn't come about. You should watch that lecture.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2010
Skeptic Heretic:

I believe according to M-theory everything is curling up into the 11th dimension. But according to the Big Bang theory everything is expanding outwards at the speed of light.

You do not have that nothingness stuff correct, but you are well learned in physics.

What lecture are you referring to?
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2010
But according to the Big Bang theory everything is expanding outwards at the speed of light.
Not outwards and not at the speed of light.
There is no "outer region" to the universe into which it could expand. It is expanding by increasing the distances between points (on large scales).

GR does not forbid expansion speeds faster than light.
See http://www.astro....html#FTL .
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2010
Aug 19, 2010, that CMB started off as gamma rays
Because it didn't. It started out as UV on down. When the energy levels were still high enough to produce gamma radiation the light was getting absorbed almost as soon as it emited. It was the FINAL light emited by matter as light and matter decoupled that produced the CMB. This is true whether inflation was real or not. Whether the Universe bounces or not.

Since the evidence shows the Universe expanding as far as we can see we can make a reasonable that it was expanding in the time before we can see. As we project back in time the matter is more compressed the energy is more concetrated. But we can only project the light back to the period when the Universe was opaque. Before that all light was being absorbed and reemited. Its a pretty straight forward idea once you accept the evidence of expansion.

The CMB can't tell us a lot about the time before transparency except by analyzing the variation in temperature.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2010
The Big Bang and Cyclic Universe theories do not explain what the universe is expanding into
No, but they do give us ways to look at things. There could have been space already in either of those. Pretty much has to be there in the Brane Cyclic idea. Until the evidence for acceleration was found most Cosmologists seem to have preferred the idea of a JUST barely closed Universe. A closed Universe pretty much had to have created the space as it expanded. There is more flexibility in the way things could have been in an open Universe.
I love it when people say the universe can from nothingness or that time and space began with the Big Bang
It fit the evidence that was leading to the idea of a closed Universe. Something I was never comfortable with due to the major hand waving that was going on to claim the Universe was closed. However at the moment there is nothing that we can say about time before the Big Bang that is more than speculation.

Ethelred
hodzaa
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2010
CMB started off as gamma rays... it didn't..

For example these four links are claiming the opposite. I've no reason to believe just you without any linked evidence.

http://abyss.uore...c23.html
http://lcd-www.co..._01.html
http://antarctics...?id=1237
http://abyss.uore...oons.gif

The commonly accepted hypothesis is, not only CMB, but even observable matter started its life by materialization of primordial gamma radiation at GUT scale after Big Bang.
DamienS
5 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2010
But according to the Big Bang theory everything is expanding outwards at the speed of light.

The Big Bang theory doesn't say that 'everything' (galaxies) are 'expanding out at c'. The galaxies don't really have a large relative velocity (whatever the distance) - they can be considered to be more or less stationary. They only appear to be receding at near c at large redshifts because there is so much intervening space which is being created ('expanded').
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2010
For example these four links are claiming the opposite. I've no reason to believe just you without any linked evidence.
I already gave you the links that were more than adequate evidence and the logic is pretty much inescapable. Posting links about what happened before transparency doesn't support you in any way.
not only CMB, but even observable matter started its life by materialization of primordial gamma radiation at GUT scale after Big Bang.
Which may be true EXCEPT for the CMB which COULD NOT exist until the Universe became transparent.

This is not a competition of irrelevant links. It is evidence and reason. The only evidence I need is the evidence that support the expansion Universe. Everything else follows from that and nothing you have posted shows me wrong. They can't. They don't.

Link one
At recombination, these cosmic background photons escaped from the interaction with matter to travel freely through the Universe.
Agrees with me. Thank you.

More
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2010
Link two a few pages on
http://lcd-www.co..._03.html
At this temperature (4000 K) the universe is cold enough for atoms to exist. So, quickly electrons combine with atom nuclei to form atoms. This process is called recombination.

Before recombination, while the gas was ionized, free electrons collided with the CMB photons quite often. This kind of collisions is called scattering. Then suddenly, when all free electrons jumped into atoms, CMB photons had nothing to collide with. They just flew in straight lines after that.

Thus, when we see a CMB photon coming straight into our ``eyes'', we see it coming from the moment of last collision with the free electron. This moment and place in the universe is called the surface of last scattering.
Which again agrees with me about what we actually are measuring in the CMB. The light from the time the Universe became transparent.

So thank you for that.

More of useful, for me, links form Zehpir to come
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2010
Link 3
About 400,000 years after this cataclysmic event, the universe cooled enough to allow electrons to combine with nuclei (what’s known as recombination). The universe glowed with light before recombination, but after recombination, it became transparent.
Agrees with me.

Link four is completely irrelevant and ugly besides.

And the previous link also supports me.

http://www.gresha...ntId=994
As the universe expanded and cooled there finally came a time, ~380,000 years after the origin, when the typical photon energy became low enough to allow atoms to form. There were then no free electrons left to scatter radiation so the universe became transparent. This is thus as far back in time as we are able to see. At this time the universe had a temperature of ~3000K
Four out of five of you links support ME. Clearly you simply did not understand what I was saying and were more interested in insulting people than learning.

Ethelred
hodzaa
1.8 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2010
Four out of five of you links support ME.

I linked four links only. First link says:

"Cosmic background photons have their origin at the matter/anti-matter annihilation era and, thus, were formed as GAMMA-RAYS."

The another link is saying:

..."Fast forward 14 billion years as the universe continued to expand. That brilliant light that started as ultra-high energy GAMMA RAYS stretched into X-rays, was visible light at recombination, and has now stretched all the way to microwaves. ....."

The third link is sayiing:

"..If so, the Universe would then have been filled with very high energy photons, initially in the form of GAMMA RAYS. As the Universe has expanded the radiation has become less energetic and would now be in the far infra red and very short wave radio parts of the spectrum..."

As you can see, all three links are saying clearly, CMB started as a GAMMA RAYS, in contrary to your and S_Heretic opinion.

End of story.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2010
I linked four links only.
The fifth was yours also. The post started like this
Two American scientists,
Which told us nothing we didn't already know.
First link says:
Says what I quoted. If you don't like it then don't link to it.
The another link is saying:
Also says exactly what I quoted. Nothing you quoted disagreed with what I said.
The third link is sayiing:
Guess what. It also said what I quoted.
As you can see, all three links are saying clearly, CMB started as a GAMMA RAYS, in contrary to your and S_Heretic opinion.


Yet they ALSO agreed with me. You simply don't understand that the gamma rays had been absorbed and reemitted many times. Each time at a lower energy untill it was no longer gamma rays when the the Universe went transparent.

You have been disagreeing with me because I pointed out the what we now measure is NOT from the ORIGINAL gamma rays. Which is correct as YOUR links all pointed out.

Thanks for the links.

Ethelred
hodzaa
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2010
Each time at a lower energy until it was no longer gamma rays when the the Universe went transparent.
It means, the original stance of Rohitas, that CMB started as a gamma ray was completely correct and the negativism of yours and Skeptic Heretic has caused the flooding of this discussion by another twenty completely redundant posts. Next time think better about what you're actually opposing - or this situation will repeat again with no mercy.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2010
Skeptic Heretic:

I believe according to M-theory everything is curling up into the 11th dimension.
No. According to M theory, everything is a resultant set of quantum fluxuation on the 11 D plane.
But according to the Big Bang theory everything is expanding outwards at the speed of light.
No.
You do not have that nothingness stuff correct, but you are well learned in physics.
I always welcome refutation however you haven't provided any.
What lecture are you referring to?

The one hour lecture I linked above. It's a great one.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2010
It means, the original stance of Rohitas, that CMB started as a gamma ray was completely correct and the negativism of yours and Skeptic Heretic has caused the flooding of this discussion by another twenty completely redundant posts.
Our "flooding" is in response to your ignorant ramblings.
Next time think better about what you're actually opposing - or this situation will repeat again with no mercy.
Are we being threatened with situations? This sounds like Jersey Shore, not Physorg.

Turn off the TV, kid.
TabulaMentis
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2010
@ Skeptic Heretic:

You do not have that nothingness stuff correct, but you are well learned in physics.
I always welcome refutation however you haven't provided any.

I will get back with you later on this one.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2010
It means, the original stance of Rohitas, that CMB started as a gamma ray
As I already pointed out I wasn't replying to you. I was talking to people that think and read and listen. Not to a Double Login.
yours and Skeptic Heretic has caused the flooding of this discussion
Do I smell hypocrisy. YES and lies also. I made one post that had nothing to do with your AWITSBS nonsense and you freaked. I am only replying to your present posts because they are directed at me. Otherwise I mostly ignore your AWITBS spam. Double logins are for the unethical.
Next time think better
After all your wrong headed posts instead of apologizing you engaged in yet another attack and threatened more attacks.

That post counts as abuse and has been reported. I don't threaten, I warn and then act if needed. Threats are for trolls.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2010
I always welcome refutation however you haven't provided any.

I will get back with you later on this one.

I look forward to it, feel free to PM if this article is stale at that time.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.