Riddle of matter remains unsolved: Proton and antiproton share fundamental properties

October 18, 2017, Universitaet Mainz
BASE experiment at the CERN antiproton decelerator in Geneva: Visible in the image are the control equipment, the superconducting magnet that houses the Penning trap, and the antiproton transfer beam tube. Credit: Stefan Sellner, Fundamental Symmetries Laboratory, RIKEN, Japan

The search goes on. No difference in protons and antiprotons have yet been found which would help to potentially explain the existence of matter in our universe. However, physicists in the BASE collaboration at the CERN research center have been able to measure the magnetic force of antiprotons with almost unbelievable precision. Nevertheless, the data do not provide any information about how matter formed in the early universe as particles and antiparticles would have had to completely destroy one another. The most recent BASE measurements revealed instead a large overlap between protons and antiprotons, thus confirming the Standard Model of particle physics. Around the world, scientists are using a variety of methods to find some difference, regardless of how small. The matter-antimatter imbalance in the universe is one of the hot topics of modern physics.

The multinational BASE collaboration at the European research center CERN brings together scientists from the RIKEN research center in Japan, the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU), the University of Tokyo, GSI Darmstadt, Leibniz Universität Hannover, and the German National Metrology Institute (PTB) in Braunschweig. They compare the magnetic properties of protons and antiprotons with great precision. The magnetic moment is an essential component of particles and can be depicted as roughly equivalent to that of a miniature bar magnet. The so-called g-factor measures the strength of the magnetic field. "At its core, the question is whether the antiproton has the same magnetism as a proton," explained Stefan Ulmer, spokesperson of the BASE group. "This is the riddle we need to solve."

The BASE collaboration published high-precision measurements of the antiproton g-factor back in January 2017 but the current ones are far more precise. The current high-precision measurement determined the g-factor down to nine significant digits. This is the equivalent of measuring the circumference of the earth to a precision of four centimeters. The value of 2.7928473441(42) is 350 times more precise than the results published in January. "This tremenduous increase in such a short period of time was only possible thanks to completely new methods," said Ulmer. The process involved scientists using two antiprotons for the first time and analyzing them with two Penning traps.

BASE Penning trap system to measure magnetic movement of the antiproton. Credit: Stefan Sellner, Fundamental Symmetries Laboratory, RIKEN, Japan
Antiprotons stored a year before analysis

Antiprotons are artificially generated at CERN and researchers store them in a reservoir trap for experiments. The antiprotons for the current experiment were isolated in 2015 and measured between August and December 2016, which is a small sensation as this was the longest storage period for antimatter ever documented. Antiprotons are usually quickly annihilated when they come into contact with matter, such as in air. Storage was demonstrated for 405 days in a vacuum, which contains ten times fewer particles than interstellar space. A total of 16 antiprotons were used and some of them were cooled to approximately absolute zero or minus 273 degrees Celsius.

The new principle uses the interaction of two Penning traps. The traps use electrical and magnetic fields to capture the antiprotons. Previous measurements were severely limited by an ultra-strong magnetic inhomogeneity in the Penning trap. In order to overcome this barrier, the scientists added a second trap with a highly homogeneous magnetic field. "We thus used a method developed at Mainz University that created higher precision in the measurements," explained Ulmer. "The measurement of antiprotons was extremely difficult and we had been working on it for ten years. The final breakthrough came with the revolutionary idea of performing the measurement with two particles." The larmor frequency and the cyclotron frequency were measured; taken together they form the g-factor.

The g-factor ascertained for the antiproton was then compared to the g-factor for the proton, which BASE researchers had measured with the greatest prior precision already in 2014. In the end, however, they could not find any difference between the two. This consistency is a confirmation of the CPT symmetry, which states that the universe is composed of a fundamental symmetry between particles and antiparticles. "All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist," explained Christian Smorra, first author of the study. "An asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand where the difference is. What is the source of the symmetry break?"

The BASE scientists now want to use even higher precision measurements of the and properties to find an answer to this question. The BASE collaboration plans to develop further innovative methods over the next few year and improve on the current results.

Explore further: Improved measurements of antiproton's magnetic moment deepen mystery of baryonic asymmetry

More information: C. Smorra et al, A parts-per-billion measurement of the antiproton magnetic moment, Nature (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nature24048

Related Stories

Protons and antiprotons appear to be true mirror images

August 12, 2015

In a stringent test of a fundamental property of the standard model of particle physics, known as CPT symmetry, researchers from the RIKEN-led BASE collaboration at CERN have made the most precise measurements so far of the ...

Zeroing in on the proton's magnetic moment

May 28, 2014

As part of a series of experiments designed to resolve one of the deepest mysteries of physics today, researchers from RIKEN, in collaboration with the University of Mainz, GSI Darmstadt and the Max Planck Institute for Physics ...

A new ring to slow down antimatter

November 29, 2016

You could mistake ELENA for a miniature accelerator. But, unlike most accelerators, it's housed in a hangar and you can take it all in in just a single glance. The biggest difference though, is that it doesn't accelerate ...

Recommended for you

Magnetoresistance ratio enhancement in Heusler-based alloy

December 18, 2018

Magnetic field sensors can enhance applications that require efficient electric energy management. Improving magnetic field sensors below the picoTesla range could enable a technique to measure brain activity at room temperature ...

48 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ursiny33
1 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2017
Why do you think they are destroyed because you can find them or they disappear in our dimension, maybe they are captured magnetically by the opposite charged particle and their charge quantum mass is smaller than the opposite quantum mass they are magnetically bonded to ,so you can't measure them only the dominant larger opposite charge is measurable in the unbalanced charged construction of the particle
Parsec
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 18, 2017
Why do you think they are destroyed because you can find them or they disappear in our dimension, maybe they are captured magnetically by the opposite charged particle and their charge quantum mass is smaller than the opposite quantum mass they are magnetically bonded to ,so you can't measure them only the dominant larger opposite charge is measurable in the unbalanced charged construction of the particle


First rule of posting, post first, THEN smoke crack. Reversing the order works far less than well.
Elmo_McGillicutty
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2017
The source of symmetry breakage is the handedness of charge. Charge is not positive and negative. It's left handed and right handed. The magnetic field of a right handed charge is parallel with the charge. This allows the proton to store ~ 2000 times the energy as a left handed charge, the electron....whose magnetic field is anti-parallel. The electron doesn't want to store anything....always looking for low state. Protons always looking for high state.

These particles are the same thing......if we charge a electron to the proton density....we have an anti-proton.

If we relax a proton to an electron density...we have a positron.

Anti-matter is just a rare inversion of matter. A mirror.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2017
Moving right along past the crack, seems like the differences we're finding are not in the quark sector but in the lepton sector. This is curious, but may lead to a viable theory that satisfies the Sakharov Criteria.
idjyit
2.3 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2017
Super Symmetry ?

Can anyone explain how "Fluctuations in the Quantum Foam" (i.e Big Bang) in any way equates to a particle colliders captured fragments of so called "Anti Particles"

Where did all the Anti Matter go ? , obviously it never existed because there wasn't a giant particle collider that created the Universe as we know it.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2017
Where did all the Anti Matter go ? , obviously it never existed because there wasn't a giant particle collider that created the Universe as we know it.
The giant particle collider was the merger of two really super-massive black holes, one matter and the other antimatter. The annihilation led to inflation which is still going on today only on a much smaller scale because most matter and antimatter have been separated into their own domains. It's like this: Throw two coins. If they're the same, put them into separate piles - a pile of heads and one of tails. If they're different throw them back and toss them again until they come up both heads or both tails. Mystery is how do we know half the galaxies out there aren't made of antimatter? Specifically the Andromeda galaxy. And if it's not predominantly the same type of matter that we are we will both go poof bye-bye. Not exactly feel-good physics but that's the way it goes sometimes.
idjyit
3 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
What a load of rubbish, why would two black wholes spontaneously expand ?, did gravity miraculously vanish ?

There is no evidence of antimatter in our Universe, only man made particles that can't exist for any length of time without very specific containment.

The quest for pure energy from Antimatter is delusional. If it annihilates completely then where would the actual energy come from ?

It's a man made construct end of story.
shavera
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2017
Mystery is how do we know half the galaxies out there aren't made of antimatter?

Actually, not really a mystery. There's a tiny amount of matter between galaxies, so if an entire galaxy was made of antimatter, there would constantly be little annihilations at its border. Matter-antimatter annihilation has a pretty distinct signature in light (looking for photons with about 1 electron's mass in energy, for example) We have special instruments we've put into space to look for just such a signature and haven't seen any evidence of it yet. So it's pretty likely that all the galaxies we can see are galaxies of 'matter.'
shavera
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2017
The quest for pure energy from Antimatter is delusional

Since we can't harvest antimatter from natural sources, then yes, antimatter will almost surely require more energy to create than it releases in its annihilation. However, antimatter might be a useful form of energy concentration or storage (in the far future). You could have a reactor facility pumping energy over a long period of time into creating antimatter, which could be easily moved somewhere else, or be used to release a whole lot of energy all at once.

If it annihilates completely then where would the actual energy come from ?

People get hung up on this idea of "pure energy." Energy always has some form, since it requires some thing to move or have mass or both. Usually what people mean by pure energy is "something that carries energy but doesn't itself have mass." Which is almost always photons. Turns out when an electron and positron annihilate, they turn into two high energy photons.
physman
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2017
@Parsec That's fucking hilarious
physman
4 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2017
@ Elmo_McGillicutty "The magnetic field of a right handed charge is parallel with the charge": what on Earth are you talking about, please elaborate (with some evidence or predictions)?

@idjyit What about beta plus decay? This naturally produces positrons from Carbon 11and many others.

Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2017
Turns out when an electron and positron annihilate, they turn into two high energy photons.
Good point. A photon is its own anti-particle. Wondering about gamma ray bursts, for example.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2017
There's a tiny amount of matter between galaxies, so if an entire galaxy was made of antimatter, there would constantly be little annihilations at its border.
With a density of one particle per cubic meter I doubt you'll see very many collisions causing annihilations. And there are zilch zero nada galaxies made up of pure matter or antimatter. Most of the interactions would have to be between large bodies inside galaxies causing gamma ray bursts. Smaller interactions could be like between stars and some planet, maybe like Tabby's star which is disappearing at an unusual rate or rogue stars which get their tails burnt off and take off at unbelievable speeds.
gunnee1234
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2017
3: A singularity is all particles original state.
4: This original state, the singularity, surrounds the universe.
A) Original antimatter annihilates with this original surrounding singularity, leaving only matter back within the universe.
B) This annihilation causes a pullback of its eventhorizon, and a so called "hawking radiation" as we now regard as the background radiation.
C) The pullback of its event horizon causes an equal expansion of the space within.

Ref: A Philosophical And Mathematical Theory Of Everything
tallenglish
5 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
I thought this was understood, the only difference is the charge and spin of the particles involved, so up anti-quark is -2/3 charge and -1/2 spin, down anti-quark is +1/3 charge and -1/2 spin - so anti-proton is -1 charge and -1.5 spin, anti-neutron is 0 charge and -1.5 spin)?
shavera
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2017
With a density of one particle per cubic meter I doubt you'll see very many collisions causing annihilations


You're forgetting to integrate over tens of billions of square light years. You aren't necessarily looking for single collision events, but a general peak in photons around the electron mass in energy. It's something astrophysicists have been looking for and haven't found, to the best of my knowledge. (nb: I mean galaxies are overwhelmingly matter and not anti-matter, even if some small amount of anti-matter exists in a given galaxy at a given time due to various reactions that may occur)
EyeNStein
4 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2017
As only the weak force is matter/anti-matter asymmetric it makes more sense to experiment on particles that are sensitive to the weak force ---- not protons.
Something exotic with a short enough lifetime to suit the detectors and with a detectable antimatter-asymmetric signature.
Sounds like a job for the high luminosity LHC and a lot of statistics.

shavera
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2017
the only difference is the charge and spin of the particles

Charge... is more complicated than just electric charge. There's electric charge, weak isospin(or 'weak hypercharge'), and strong force's 'color charge'. Spin (the value of the spin, not the allowed magnitude) is a measure of angular momentum, so it's not an intrinsic property of a particle or an anti-particle.
tallenglish
3 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
I have a nice graph that shows how the spin of all the standard particles (including higgs, guage bosons, leptons and quarks) are all connected using only spin, charge and complex number version of time (i.e. mass/quarks spin around the imaginary plane, leptons the real plane - thats why we can't see mass, only light and mass bends time around it - so a shining star is unwrapping time in a spiral hence emit photons/red shift, neutron star spins contracting time and absorbing photons/blue shift).

https://www.faceb...p;type=3
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2017
Matter-antimatter annihilation has a pretty distinct signature in light (looking for photons with about 1 electron's mass in energy, for example). We have special instruments we've put into space to look for just such a signature and haven't seen any evidence of it yet.
So you have special instruments out there looking for signs of electron-positron annihilation? I know there are instruments out there detecting gamma rays but these would have to come from interactions with heavier particles.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2017
There is no evidence of antimatter in our Universe

Any form of beta+ decay creates positrons, which are the anti-particles to electrons.

There also seems a bit of antimatter (specifically antiprotons) in the Van Allen Belts which are created from high energy photons hitting regular matter (antiproton generation has a very low probability and hence there's not much of it).

Neither process creates anywhere near useful amounts for energy storage/usage, of course. But the beta+ decay is used in PET scanners:
The patient is injected with an agent that undergoes beta decay (usually a suitably tagged tracer like a sugar molecule that accumulates in organ of interest). When the generated positron quickly annihilates with a regular electron they send out two photons in opposite directions (due to conservation of momentum). These photons are detected and can thus -via measurement of lag to detectors- pinpoint a location within the body.
shavera
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2017
There is also no reason to exclude

I'm not excluding it. Just saying that particles who have opposite spins aren't necessarily anti-particles nor do anti-particles necessarily have opposite spins. Their magnitude, not their sign, matters. Which I very clearly state.

As for the other charges, they're charges in the sense of Noether's theorem. For every symmetry of physics there is an associated conserved charge/current. For the symmetry of EM, it's electric charge. For the symmetry of the weak force, it's the weak isospin, for the strong force, 'color' charge. For the symmetry of space-time translation, it's 4-momentum, and so on.

Yes, they're not measured directly, like an EM charge may be, but the systems they describe do follow certain symmetries, so the word we use for the 'conserved quantity' is a 'charge'
shavera
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2017
I know there are instruments out there detecting gamma rays

Gamma rays are just photons with certain high energies (from like 0.1 to 10 MeV). Electrons are about 0.5 MeV, so they would produce gamma rays. So you're just looking for a certain peak in your gamma ray observatory's spectrum that you would like to correlate with a certain source (like a distant galaxy).
louiswilbur229
4 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2017
It sounds like these researchers are under the mistaken idea that only CPT violation can explain the excess of matter over antimatter. If CPT violation were real then that would mean that quantum field theory is wrong and that would be a crisis for science. So CPT violation is the wrong place to look to explain the excess of matter over antimatter. The proper place to look for an explanation is CP violation; the standard model already has CP violation (although not enough to explain the matter over antimatter excess). To explain the existence of matter over antimatter, an excess is needed by about one part in a billion (if I remember correctly). As I understand it, that amount of CP violation is possible from the neutrino sector. But if the neutrino sector doesn't provide enough CP violation then CP violation from yet to be discovered quanta is the most likely explanation.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
@louis, it's important to differentiate between the quark and lepton sectors when talking about CPT violations. The evidence is associated but somewhat equivocal; the CP violations in neutral kaons and D and B mesons involve the generation of neutrinos (leptons), so it's not at all clear that these are violations in the quark sector, they may only be violations in the lepton sector. What physicists are looking for is direct evidence of CPT violations in the quark sector. And so far not finding it.

So far no one has been able to show that the known violations in the lepton sector are sufficient to account for the matter/antimatter imbalance by satisfying the Sakharov Criteria. But this remains an open question.

Note also that the CP violations we have seen appear so far to be only in the weak force. But it's important to eliminate as many interactions as we can, which is why these experiments are being done.
louiswilbur229
3 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
Da_Schneib, obviously this experiment is just a test of the CPT theorem. But looking for CPT violations is like looking for violations of angular momentum conservation. Scientists should not expect to find any. Perhaps the excess of matter over antimatter could be explained by violations of angular momentum conservation but the smart money should not be on that. An excess of one part in a billion has the `smell and feel' of CP violation somewhere; either in the lepton sector or other types of quanta which have not yet been discovered.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Oct 19, 2017
But looking for CPT violations is like looking for violations of angular momentum conservation.

Well, with conservation of angular momentum we have never observed a violation...but we do observe more matter than antimatter in the universe, so we should expect some method of violating symmetry.
Spaced out Engineer
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2017
The BaBar experiment says B-mesons. However a meta stable multiverse should not be aversed to unfolding. Perhaps super-symmetric relations keep on breaking. Charge to space as unity, parity and time symmetric.
Coupled, decoupled, are you?

They won't find a magnetic moment on the Z's of an idiot dreaming God, but they could duplicate oscillatory encoding on a lepton. What ever the fuck this is keep happening.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
@louis, a failed experiment can be as indicative as a successful one. Note carefully the outcome of the failed Michelson-Morley experiment. Not finding significant CP violation in the color force concentrates attention in the weak force. I think we share a bias in that direction.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2017
"An asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand where the difference is. What is the source of the symmetry break?" There is no a priori reason to believe there is any asymmetry involved. Particle pair creation generally leads to annihilation which causes inflation. That means particles must distribute themselves in such a way that they are separated into domains far enough away from each other to prevent further annihilation. This would take billions of annihilations before a particle would find a safe haven. That means there must be sufficient space between these domains to stop annihilation and reduce inflation. Otherwise there would be no galaxies because there would be no space between them. But to assert these safe havens are matter or antimatter just because our safe haven is that type of matter doesn't fly in my sky. When we meet Andromeda I'd say we have a 50-50 chance of becoming an elliptical galaxy or just creating more space between other galaxies.
tallenglish
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2017
Symmetry is broken as we have more of one type of quark - mainly up quarks as we are next to a proton star. I don't think the charge should be +2/3 for up and -1/3 for down quarks but +/- 1/2 - the difference causes gravity (bending in spacetime) and that bend is caused by more of one type of quark over the other. Light is emit to rebalance that i.e. up->down + light/positron. We have to critically think how much our own star is skewing what we see (e.g. is the fact we see red shift in all directions due to our star emitting photons and expanding spacetime around it - not that the universe is expanding away in all directions.
tallenglish
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2017
Like we have seen with LIGO - neutron stars (and black holes) compress spacetime - so the closer you get to one the faster time will pass. The reverse is also true, for proton stars they expand spacetime (in a spiral fassion - like ripple in a pond) - i.e. for proton stars (and our planet) the further you get away from the center of mass the slower the time dilation (red shift) will be. If we had something on Mars looking at the stars I bet we would see less red shift in all directions than what we see here on earth.
Merrit
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2017
I don't see how a CP violation in one sector would necessarily lead to the imbalance we see today. I would think you would need a cp violation across all sectors.

Also, you don't need to break symmetry to explain our observable universe being dominated by ordinary matter. For instance, the universe could have equal amounts of both and our observable universe is just a tiny fraction of the entire universe. It could also just have something to do with the initial state of the universe.
f_darwin
3 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2017
Until mankind correctly understand structure of matter and nature of gravity and focus to understand how the two interact. They are working blind and fantasize. Their current model is wrong but they are reluctant to even consider looking at alternatives because they will be excommunicate by their peers. MG1
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2017
Symmetry violations and weak force mediated decay may well manifest in other sectors. But could the detectors see enough anti-neutrons decay into anti-protons with such very long,15 mins, lifetime (=very low probability) to give useful results.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2017
I don't see how a CP violation in one sector would necessarily lead to the imbalance we see today. I would think you would need a cp violation across all sectors.
It's the weak force. It mixes the lepton and quark sectors. No direct CP violation has been observed (and this experiment is an excellent example) in the pure quark sector, but both indirect and direct CP violations have been observed not only in the quark weak sector (which involves leptons) but in the lepton sector (in neutrinos). Whether these result in enough asymmetry to account for the matter-antimatter asymmetry remains to be seen.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2017
[contd]
Also, you don't need to break symmetry to explain our observable universe being dominated by ordinary matter. For instance, the universe could have equal amounts of both and our observable universe is just a tiny fraction of the entire universe. It could also just have something to do with the initial state of the universe.
Actually, you do. What you need to postulate in order to account for this is that no domain walls separate matter and antimatter in the visible universe, and that's quite a stretch even with inflation. There must be no domain walls within 50 billion light years of here. That's not a "tiny fraction" unless you postulate an enormous size consequent upon a really large inflation, far beyond anything that has been proposed so far.
Merrit
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2017
@schneib if there are equal amounts in the universe it could well be there is only one wall. If the that is the case and the universe is sufficiently large, then it would be very unlikely that we would see the wall in our observable universe.

Also, there are practically infinite exotic solutions to the problem that don't need to break symmetry such as additional dimensions or universes etc.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2017
@Merrit I think they did calculations on this and it came out extremely unlikely that if there were domain walls there wouldn't be any in the visible universe and that's one of the justification for inflation. It's certainly very speculative.

I think that the exotic solutions are pretty speculative too.

I'll also point out that constructing a domain wall in a laboratory on Earth could create a zone of vacuum decay, and that could be pretty dangerous. But now I'm speculating.
Elmo_McGillicutty
5 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2017
@physman .....measure the dipole direction of a right handed wound coil in a current flow circuit. Now leave the circuit the exact same and exchange coil for a left handed wound coil. You will measure a dipole reversal. The only thing that changed was the rotational direction of the same current. The current did not change direction or polarity.

This is where all handedness comes from. It's a fundamental property of charge. And if you think about it for a time.......it also shows that + and - charge are the same thing. If it were possible to repeat the experiment...with real positive particle current(not electronic apparent flow or conventional flow)......We would see mirror results of the negative particle current. A positron circuit.

1 proof...1 prediction.
nikola_milovic_378
Oct 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Oct 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 22, 2017
Like we have seen with LIGO - neutron stars (and black holes) compress spacetime - so the closer you get to one the faster time will pass.
I don't think so. Particles can orbit black holes forever and ever and their clocks may not tick one second. Time dilation.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2017
OBTW - Spacetime doesn't compress, except during particle production. The only way you can compress spacetime into matter that I know of is radiation. Neutron stars don't compress spacetime, they expel spacetime like in a supernova. The difference between neutron stars and black holes is that black holes expel spacetime continuously as they feed on matter. For example the mass density of an iron-56 atom has been estimated to be 1 part in 13 trillion, as least as far as the spacetime volume goes. So the black hole just keeps the 1 part and spits out the rest. But I'm not saying you can't compress matter, as in an accelerator.
TimLong2001
5 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2017
Matter is formed supersymmetrically by pair-formation, and the electrons and positrons formed fly off in opposite directions. With photon decay from the photon's propagation reaction causing the background redshift, there would be no limitation to the age of the universe that would prevent this gradual matter-creation process from populating the universe.
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2017
Simple, False concept and Theory. Not fundamentally described, its an attempt to define fundamentals. Two different things.
Nik_2213
not rated yet Nov 24, 2017
#tallenglish, you posted your graph on a PRIVATE page. The link is blocked.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Nov 24, 2017
If charge is an infinite field from a center to infinity and there exist an infinite number of centers and only two polarities the term anti- does not define anything newer than the existing fields. So first, ignore the nonsense. This way fewer violations of Logic.

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.