Big Crunch or Big Rip?

[AntonioLao]

Only if the octant does not require a coordinate system. Directional invariance is free of any coordinate system.

[Max™]

Which is the idea of a background indepent theory.

The strong force... leaks a little, and binds nuclei together... if you will.

[dipayankar]

This is interesting. It was widely postulated that the end of the Universe would mean the end of all particles. The energy needed would be huge and that is what would bring about the big freeze.

I also located this in my research Dipayankar:


QCD enjoys two peculiar properties:

• Asymptotic freedom, which means that in very high-energy reactions, quarks and gluons interact very weakly. This prediction of QCD was first discovered in the early 1970s by David Politzer and by Frank Wilczek and David Gross. For this work they were awarded the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics.
• Confinement, which means that the force between quarks does not diminish as they are separated. Because of this, it would take an infinite amount of energy to separate two quarks; they are forever bound into hadrons such as the proton and the neutron. Although analytically unproven, confinement is widely believed to be true because it explains the consistent failure of free quark searches, and it is easy to demonstrate in lattice QCD.

Notice under confinement how they mention quarks being forever bound in the protons/neutrons.

[Fredrick]

If you separate E and M then there become 5 primary forces. However, if there are equal magnitude primary forces then all 5 forces can be described by their net directional invariance. A net inward directions would be gravity. A net outward would be antigravity. An 'exact' balance of in and out would be EM. A very small dominant of in forces would be SN and a very small dominant of out forces would be WN as radioactivity.

Thank you for this answer, Antonio. Would you care to say more about how gravity differs from antigravity, not as entities, but as in result, for instance (and to make it easier for me to view), with a ballistic example provided by you? Would, for instance, a moon behave differently if a large but local balance was of the antigravity kind?

[AntonioLao]

Fredrick,
Look at this link, especially the Scientific American article by Goldman and Nieto dated March 1988.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita...ef-nieto88_0-0

[Fredrick]

Look at this link, especially the Scientific American article by Goldman and Nieto dated March 1988.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita...ef-nieto88_0-0

That is an interesting link, Antonio, but then again, this is an interesting field altogether. One aspect that I read about makes it somewhat dissapointing, though, that "observations have thus far been methodically limited to annihilation events which yield little to no gravitational data."

And: "It is difficult to directly observe gravitational forces at the particle level. At these small distances, electric forces tend to overwhelm the much weaker gravitational interaction. Furthermore, antiparticles must be kept separate from their normal counterparts or they will quickly annihilate. Worse still, the methods of production of antimatter typically have very energetic results unsuitable for observations. Understandably, this has made it difficult to directly measure the gravitational reaction of antimatter."

While also: "Supporters argue that antimatter antigravity would explain several important physics questions. Besides the already mentioned prediction of CP violation, they argue that it explains two cosmological paradoxes. The first is the apparent local lack of antimatter: by theory antimatter and matter would repel each other gravitationally, forming separate matter and antimatter galaxies. These galaxies would also tend to repel one another, thereby preventing possible collisions and annihilations. This same galactic repulsion is also endorsed as a potential explanation to the observation of a flatly accelerating universe. If gravity was always attractive, the expansion of the universe might be expected to decelerate and eventually contract into a big crunch. Using redshift observations, astronomers and physicists estimate that instead, the size of the universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is accelerating at an approximately constant rate. Several theories have been proposed to explain this observation within the context of an always-attractive gravity. On the other hand, supporters of antigravity argue that if mutually repulsive, equal amounts of matter and antimatter would precisely offset any attraction."


What this all tells me, Antonio, is that if antigravity were to be found in our neck of the woods, it would be found only at the (sub)atomic level, and not in any larger setting. This severely diminshes the importance of it, though that information can be used to color in the picture of our universe more.

For instance, all materialized particles are floating away in a specific direction, supporting the idea that the actual conditions for matter are not one of an absolute balance, but just one of a created -later established- 'local' balance. Within this balance, we can possibly view the occurrence of antimatter as that matter that temporarily moves in discordance with the collective movement of the 'local' setting. There is no direct evidence that the occurrence of antimatter proves the point that each particle of matter has its antimatter in the local scenario. This balance would then only be held as true within the largest platform - of the universe as a whole.

It also explains why it is difficult to measure antimatter/antigravity, simply, because we are trying to express something within our reality that is itself an anti-expression within that reality. I am not saying that antimatter is a phantom (far from); rather, capturing the expression of particularly antigravity is difficult (impossible?) because the expression is only valid when done in a reality of regular matter, an actual paradox.

I do like that the antimatter/matter balance for the universe as a whole is mentioned. Who are we to claim that the matter floating in opposite direction of our own Milky Way, in the direct oppositional location away from point X (the origin of all matter) is not antimatter? What if the universe as a whole has very location-specific conditions that as a whole would result in obliteration of all matter if near each other, but that can all maintain their own specific conditions, because none finds the other on their paths.

In that scenario, our universe is in full-balance. Just not in one piece.

For the entire image of the universe, antimatter and antigravity are then not interesting, except that is explains the conditions of our universe expanding at a constant rate, and that each 'local' situation is based on the overall condition of a singularly energized direction for matter. This means matter exists in a perpetually unfinished state that nevertheless does not contain the option of resolve.

[Max™]

Um...

A positron and an electron are particle/anti-particle.

Both have a positive mass, interacting gravitationally as would be expected.

Particle/Anti-Particle isn't about some strange mass/anti-mass like that suggested, an object with negative mass would be what is labeled by some "Exotic Matter", not Anti-Matter.

Plus, if I'm correct that the solution to the CP Violation problem is that Antiquarks got locked up inside of non-interacting, massive particles (Dark Matter), it would be troublesome to try to explain why anti-particles make up a vast portion of the mass of the Universe with no clear signs of anti-gravitational interaction.

[Fredrick]

Um...

A positron and an electron are particle/anti-particle.

Both have a positive mass, interacting gravitationally as would be expected.

Particle/Anti-Particle isn't about some strange mass/anti-mass like that suggested, an object with negative mass would be what is labeled by some "Exotic Matter", not Anti-Matter.

Plus, if I'm correct that the solution to the CP Violation problem is that Antiquarks got locked up inside of non-interacting, massive particles (Dark Matter), it would be troublesome to try to explain why anti-particles make up a vast portion of the mass of the Universe with no clear signs of anti-gravitational interaction.

Okay, but how could we be certain that galaxies far away are not made up of what we would consider here as anti-matter? No one has gone out there, no samples were brought over, no one can have certainty in that respect. All we have is knowledge of distance objects based on information of the audio/visual kind.

[Max™]

Simple logic and the whole principle that, if we are not at a privileged location or time, the Universe must in general be similar to our local neighborhood.

[dipayankar]

I am sure this link warrants a thought..

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/pr...-20090311.html