Cyclic Universe

[neutralino]

I saw an interesting blog from AntonioLao on why matter is dominant over anti matter. Go through it please...

No, it doesn't. And you even posted a question which implies that it doesn't!

As it stands, we do not have an answer to the question. It is one of the unanswered questions in theoretical physics at the moment.

[Profpat]

What do you mean by "reestablish symmetry in the big bang theory"? Do you mean to answer the question as to why the laws of nature favour matter over antimatter?

Hi Neutralino;

Yes that is what I was writing about. I addressed this in another post, here it is;

------------------ABSTRACT----------------------

It is the author's intent to present a new model of the universe. We believe our justification arises in that the presently assumed asymmetrical model is insufficient.

Being an asymmetrical model it naturally allows for CP symmetry violations, indeed it demands it.
Consistent with this, is the theory that for every particle which was not annihilated, 1,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 particles/antiparticles were annihilated.
Since 1 universe was not annihilated, the mathematical equivalent to that, would be 1,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 universes and antiuniverses were annihilated.
This of course brings up the question as to where is all that energy?

Our model is one of an antimatter parallel universe which was created simultaneous with our matter universe.
This is not a multiverse model, in that we view the dual universe to be one UNIverse. In the same regards as yin/yang constitute one Tao.

We believe that vertical magnetic force was the agent to seperate the particles and antiparticle into different areas of space. This is consistent with laboratory observations.

This paper, due to the nature of the subject, will be very theoritical and be based upon logic, intuit, and common sense. A priori, Occums razor, and probability theory, are our main guide and defense.

Our thought is that our model:

1) Should be consistent with known physical laws.
2) Should be the easiest way to describe our reality.
3) Should make sense.

We believe our model accomplishes that.

Authors


OK RP you write the paper, we'll have Austin illustrate it, and we'll all be millionaires. ( In virtual dollars of course.)

Best,

Pat

So that was the theory of the antimatter parallel universe and the reason for it. All conjecture of course.

Dipayankar;

I see no reason then why they couldn't share.
BTW Do you know does opposite spin = opposite charge?

Best to both of you,

Pat

[neutralino]

So that was the theory of the antimatter parallel universe and the reason for it. All conjecture of course.

Well, it's different to say the very least! Of course, it's not a theory unless you provide experimental predictions

BTW Do you know does opposite spin = opposite charge?

No. Antiparticles have the same mass and spin as their matter counterparts, but opposite charge.

[Profpat]

Well, it's different to say the very least! Of course, it's not a theory unless you provide experimental predictions




No. Antiparticles have the same mass and spin as their matter counterparts, but opposite charge.

Thanks Neutralino;

I thought that was the case for antimatter.

OK I'll call it a thought or idea. I read where they may never be able to prove the big bang theory. I should point out that Dirac thought the antimatter was in our universe, but gave up that idea when there was no evidence or observations to prove that. We now know of course that only a little part of our universe is observable. So Dirac may be right after all. I like that better then the asymmetrical model. Too me symmetry is a VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPT.

Best to you,

Pat

[neutralino]

OK I'll call it a thought or idea. I read where they may never be able to prove the big bang theory.

Well, no, I don't see that we'll be able to prove the big bang theory at the moment-- we need to have a theory of gravity that can be rewound to the actual time of the big bang. This means, of course, that we need to know how gravity affects the quantum fluctuations in the first small fraction of a second of the lifetime of the universe.

However, the big bang theory does make predictions (well, perhaps I shouldn't say that, but should rather say that the theory agrees with observations). And, it agrees with various observations very accurately.

I should point out that Dirac thought the antimatter was in our universe, but gave up that idea when there was no evidence or observations to prove that. We now know of course that only a little part of our universe is observable. So Dirac may be right after all. I like that better then the asymmetrical model. Too me symmetry is a VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPT

I'm not sure about that; I'd *guess* that the unobservable universe is pretty much the same as the observable universe. But, of course, I have no evidence for this.

Symmetry is appealing, probably due to the makeup of the human race. Almost every force of nature is symmetrical (c.f. newtonian gravity for example) and so it's something we've come to expect of the universe.

[dipayankar]

If charge is the only difference between matter and antimatter, then our Universe in neutral (charge), what would be the diffrence between our Universe and Anti matter Universe??

Thanks Neutralino;

I thought that was the case for antimatter.

OK I'll call it a thought or idea. I read where they may never be able to prove the big bang theory. I should point out that Dirac thought the antimatter was in our universe, but gave up that idea when there was no evidence or observations to prove that. We now know of course that only a little part of our universe is observable. So Dirac may be right after all. I like that better then the asymmetrical model. Too me symmetry is a VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPT.

Best to you,

Pat

[neutralino]

If charge is the only difference between matter and antimatter, then our Universe in neutral (charge), what would be the diffrence between our Universe and Anti matter Universe??

There would be no difference. In fact, our universe could be a universe made of antimatter, but it doesn't change anything. The only thing that would be changed are the definitions; something we see of as an antiparticle would be a particle, and vice versa.

[Profpat]

I agree with Neutralino;

I guess the proton would be negative and the electron would be positive.

My Venn Diagram model handles the antiproton and antineutron well, you just have to flip my pipe cleaner model inside out.

I was relying on Dirac negative space to account for the formed electron however.

Best to all,

Pat

[dipayankar]

So how would the charcteristics of any element change??? Any we see the spectrum of antimatter O2 how would that diffref from a matter O2??? If they are the same, then what are the differences???

I agree with Neutralino;

I guess the proton would be negative and the electron would be positive.

My Venn Diagram model handles the antiproton and antineutron well, you just have to flip my pipe cleaner model inside out.

I was relying on Dirac negative space to account for the formed electron however.

Best to all,

Pat

[Profpat]

So how would the charcteristics of any element change??? Any we see the spectrum of antimatter O2 how would that diffref from a matter O2??? If they are the same, then what are the differences???

Hi Dipayankar;

The spectrum is the same, there is no such thing as an antiphoton, that I'm aware of.

When antimatter and matter annihilate they make two regular photons.

Sorry for the delay, but I couldn't relocate this thread.

Best,

Pat