[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by JAK As I understood your description of aether, it always has vibration. Further, I assumed that aether was ubiquitous. So, it seems like absolute zero does not exist anywhere in our universe. True?

JAK;
I don’t think I would use the term “ubiquitous” since there may be parts of our universe that are devoid of EM radiation and thus may actually be an absolute void; if so, this volume would also be at absolute zero. It’s like trying to say how the universe began, we can’t know for sure or even within Pauli’s uncertainty; it’s a big universe JAK!

[JAK]

Originally Posted by dleviwing JAK; I don’t think I would use the term “ubiquitous” since there may be parts of our universe that are devoid of EM radiation and thus may actually be an absolute void; if so, this volume would also be at absolute zero. It’s like trying to say how the universe began, we can’t know for sure or even within Pauli’s uncertainty; it’s a big universe JAK!

Like they say, a little knowledge is dangerous. And I've gotten into trouble already. I extrapolated from your ideas, Felix's ideas, and Profpat's ideas, and I may be leading Dipayankar astray.

Here is the situation:

• Positrons and electrons are affected differently in the presence of a magnetic field.
• A common concept for many is the idea of a parallel anti-matter universe. (An idea I find a bit sloppy since anti-matter seems to magically disappear from our universe.)
• I noted that, though positrons and electrons annihilate each other, photons seem to co-exist with either.
• After the Big Bang, if matter and anti-matter was unevenly distributed due to sensitivity to magnetic variations, then they might collect in "pools". Of these pools, the matter and anti-matter would annihilate each other leaving only the more predominant residue - matter or anti-matter - which would congeal into galaxies. Thus, some galaxies might be composed of matter while others are composed of anti-matter. Meanwhile, photons would be oblivious to the differentiation and pass blissfully between all galaxies.

Here is the dialog:

Originally Posted by JAK ... The parade is passing us by, but I would envision magnetism as the main ingredient of the barrier. Magnetism already seems to separate and "sort" particles from anti-particles. The other factor to be considered is dleviwing's aether which I am slowly beginning to understand. It may be that particles and anti-particles tend to "pool" together. If photons are oblivious to matter versus anti-matter, then it might be possible that some visible galaxies are anti-matter with any alien matter being annihilated long ago in random collisions which purified the galaxies. The same would be true for the Milky Way. But this, of course, is only speculation and needs the evaluation/input of others. But if it were true, I would expect some cataclysmic galactic collisions somewhere in the universe where a "matter" galaxy and an "anit-matter" galaxy annihilate each other. At the moment, I am not aware of any such spectacular collision, so that tends to temper my beliefs. But then again, it took a while for black holes to be recognized.

Originally Posted by dipayankar HI JAK, Just a simple clarification, Do you propose that there is a parallel Anti matter Universe with exactly the same configuration as this Universe? In the sense that there is an antimatter Milky Way and an antimatter earth??

I would like a ToE to exist in one integrated universe which my "pools" enable. So, my hope was to avoid a parallel universe scenario, the gist of Dipayankar's question. Plus, a one-for-one correspondence between positrons and electrons is long gone in my scenario. Only residue remains. All of the galaxies are composed of the predominent residue of their originating pools - matter or anti-matter.

Is this "pooling" idea plausible?

David, please provide your insight - especially from the perspective of aether.

Thanks!

[MJA]

Originally Posted by JAK I noted that, though positrons and electrons annihilate each other, photons seem to co-exist with either. !

Dear JAK,

If what you say is true, then for mankind to co-exist rather than annihilate itself, we must be converted to Photons.
A photon is, did I say "is", a quantum of light energy, the light of truth.
Then all we really need is Truth to be converted to light.
Co-existence is a form or equalibrium, or more simply stated, a form of equality that mathematically looks like this: =.

Truth is,

=
MJA

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by JAK Is this "pooling" idea plausible? David, please provide your insight - especially from the perspective of aether.

JAK;
The problem with matter / anti-matter annihilation is that nothing is annihilated. The substance of the particles simply converts the uniform motion of the particles to the chaotic randomized vibrations we call electromagnetic energy or Aether. I don’t view charge as an intrinsic property; I believe it is an interaction of the structured units of matter and the Aether that produce what we observe as a field associated with the particle. Place any charged particle in an absolute void and there would be no charge for there would be no Aether.

If you’ve ever seen a soap bubble with a droplet attached to it, this would approximate the relation between a positron and an electron. The droplet is the positron and the bubble would be the electron. Positive particles have centralized mass whereas a negative particle is more like the bubble with its mass concentrated at the boundary of its field. There’s no real problem with your concept of pooled charges but I really don’t see any advantage of such a concept or any phenomena that it may explain; Do you?

[JAK]

Originally Posted by dleviwing ... There’s no real problem with your concept of pooled charges but I really don’t see any advantage of such a concept or any phenomena that it may explain; Do you?

I guess I am looking for a way to dissuade a belief in parallel universes. It seems to me that whatever matter or anti-matter was created after the big bang should be accounted for within this universe without having to resort to a parallel universe to account for any anomalies.

What is your position on this persistent idea? Do you already have a strong reason to discount parallel universes? Or do they have other strong advantages that I am missing?

- JAK

[JAK]

Let's go back to the thread start ...

Originally Posted by dleviwing Our universe is but one of many within the infinity of the Cosmos. … cosmos beyond our universe. ...

It appears that you are supportive of multiple universes and, perhaps, even a parallel universe. This relates to my question above. If you do promote the idea of multiple universes, then I return your question: "... I really don’t see any advantage of such a concept or any phenomena that it may explain ...". My gut feel is that a ToE of our universe should be self-contained. And whether or not another universe exists is beyond the scope of our scientific instruments as well as our quest at hand.

If the "math" points to multiple universes, then I am reminded again of your opener to this thread:

Originally Posted by dleviwing "... mathematical terms, not terms of real physical existence ..."

Thoughts?

[dleviwing]

Hi JAK;
The multi-verse concept of some mainstream physicist is that other universes lie within our universe but beyond our dimensions. I do not ascribe to such bull. I do however, see no reason to believe other universes have not formed in what I view as an infinite void. (the scenario of the thread starter) Do you think that the Earth is the only life bearing planet in the whole of the universe? Same analogy; we just can’t observe other universes in the void any more than we can observe life on other planets within our universe. We may observe signs of other life in the universe but I doubt if we ever observe signs of other universes.

I hope you didn’t interpret my statement as a factual one; it’s an opinion and you know what those are worth. Mine is not worth any more than yours so put out as many opinions as you like; I find most of them interesting even though they may not fit my scheme of thinking. I think I started this thread before I understood what “IMHO” meant; I must admit I usually don’t include the “H”.

[dipayankar]

When we are talking of mass, we are talking of matter. Does this mean that ether converts to matter while collapsing????

Originally Posted by JAK With angular velocity, "spin" comes to mind. Also, as the aether/substance is collapsing, would it not acquire "mass" on its way to becoming a "Black Hole"? Does "collapsing" occur instantaneously? Or, in some situations, might it take seconds, days, years, or eons to complete? In other words, could the matter we know so well actually be considered "semi-collapsed" substance/aether?

[dleviwing]

Dip;
That’s like asking “what is the difference between steam and ice”?
Does steam become ice when it condenses?

[dipayankar]

Which would mean that ether is some kind of latent energy.

Originally Posted by dleviwing Dip; That’s like asking “what is the difference between steam and ice”? Does steam become ice when it condenses?