An Idea

[Max™]

Observation of electrons, protons/neutrons, photons, and the vacuum?

All have different charges, and different spins, and the behavior of all of them cannot be explained except with the combination of charge + spin changing.

Again though, spin is more of an um... weird observation about the way things interact with their surroundings.

Electrons have the same spin as protons, but different charges.

Look up the Feynman Plate Trick, or Dirac Strings.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Every time a black hole in born in this Universe a white hole is born in the antimatter Universe. If yes, I would imagine the converse to be also true. Now that means that either matter converts to antimatter inside the process or we get a whole lot of antimatter direct from the other side.

Hi Dippy (and other contributors to this discussion)

This concept is fundamental to my view of reality though differing in a few details. I believe in a parallel universe but not in the plural version. There is just one parallel universe and it is the mirror image of ours but consisting of antimatter. This resolves two problems: firstly the issue of conservation of matter and energy and secondly - what happened to all of the antimatter in our own universe.

One of the big unexplained issues in current scientific thinking is to explain the difference between a black hole and the singularity which resulted in the big bang. This can be resolved if we consider that each black hole (and it really is a hole, not just a blob) has a white hole at the other end. Thus matter/antimatter is created all of the time through these mechanisms, not just a one off as in the big bang. What's the evidence for this? Each galaxy has a large black hole at its centre and my argument is that this was the source of the galaxy in the past. Further evidence is that we regularly have gamma ray bursts which may create the star nurseries which are also observed.

Any takers besides myself and Fred Hoyle?

regards
Felix

[Max™]

Hi Dippy (and other contributors to this discussion)

This concept is fundamental to my view of reality though differing in a few details. I believe in a parallel universe but not in the plural version. There is just one parallel universe and it is the mirror image of ours but consisting of antimatter. This resolves two problems: firstly the issue of conservation of matter and energy and secondly - what happened to all of the antimatter in our own universe.

I don't think the current model is exactly right, while it suggests that all of the matter/anti-matter should have formed in the same state and then annihilated, leaving the presence of anything a mystery. I think my model of dark matter particles would have been formed at an earlier time than baryogenesis, locking up most of the anti-matter except for a smattering of it. If I'm correct, we're floating in a sea of neutered anti-quarks which have been rendered non-interactive by their configuration.

One of the big unexplained issues in current scientific thinking is to explain the difference between a black hole and the singularity which resulted in the big bang. This can be resolved if we consider that each black hole (and it really is a hole, not just a blob) has a white hole at the other end.

The other end in space... I can't agree with because topologically it isn't that simple of an object. The other end of a black hole is RIGHT on the other side of the event horizon, the directionality is different in there.

Consider the implications of various theories which avoid singularities at the big bang, they describe a "big crunch" on the other side.

Imagine what a big crunch process would look like from the inside, and where it would come from.

What would collapse an entire Universe into it's fist?

Why would it have to be an entire Universe?

Gravity has a fist powerful enough to collapse portions of a Universe hard enough to causally separate them from their parent... so that makes the question one of location again, but not in space... it becomes one of location in time.

The other end in time, exactly my thoughts.

The difference between a black hole and a big bang singularity, is the presence of a Universe around them. A white hole cannot open up inside of a Universe, nor can a big bang, the vacuum is metastable enough to prevent this.

When the vacuum unravels and decays into a maximal entropy state, there will be nothing preventing a new Universe opening up, no more event horizons because no meaningful measure of events.

If you compress a chunk of gridlines enough, it rips apart from the other lines, and is forced into a very low, possibly minimal entropy state. No room for temporal interaction at all, all of the directions tangled up with each other, only one degree of freedom, outwards, to unfurl. With a Universe on the outside of the horizon, that degree of freedom is blocked, so you get a frozen state.

The hole left in the parent Universe is not large enough to properly express the child Universe, so the child cannot unfold, if the space composing the child cannot experience any freedom of directionality, it cannot experience time, so you get a seed waiting to germinate.

One actor cannot occupy center stage whilst another is playing their part, at least as far as Universes go.

Thus matter/antimatter is created all of the time through these mechanisms, not just a one off as in the big bang. What's the evidence for this? Each galaxy has a large black hole at its centre and my argument is that this was the source of the galaxy in the past. Further evidence is that we regularly have gamma ray bursts which may create the star nurseries which are also observed.

Any takers besides myself and Fred Hoyle?

regards
Felix

I think your scale is skewed, though the basic idea is workable if you bump your mechanism up to the level of Universes, not mere galaxies.

[Profpat]

" secondly - what happened to all of the antimatter in our own universe." ( Felix )

It was annhilated, along with most of the matter, Felix. For every proton there are a billion photons, which were created at the time of the big bang, when matter and anti-matter were annhilating each other.

And so if my math is correct that would mean it's 99.9999999% symmetrical, the other .00000001% is because creation wasn't infinite. It had a beginning and an end, which means one will be in excess, in this case matter, another fraction of a second and we may have been anti-matter. It's like flipping a coin, heads will equal tails if you flip it an infinite number of times, but if it's a limited number of tosses then one will favor the other at any one point in time.

So while I like the idea of an anti-matter parallel universe, I don't believe it's necessary to reinstill charge symmetry. P and T symmetry is another matter.

[Max™]

Balance a pencil on your fingertip.

How many ways can it fall while it is balanced?

How many ways can it change it's state after it falls?

It fell in such a way that one direction of time was selected, so of the two initially equal orientations for matter, one became chosen as "correct" with the flow of time, and one was opposing.

In a universe where the arrow of time fell the other way, we would be anti-matter.

[dipayankar]

So do all the black holes in our universe become white holes in a single universe or connect to diverse universes?

Hi Dippy (and other contributors to this discussion)

This concept is fundamental to my view of reality though differing in a few details. I believe in a parallel universe but not in the plural version. There is just one parallel universe and it is the mirror image of ours but consisting of antimatter. This resolves two problems: firstly the issue of conservation of matter and energy and secondly - what happened to all of the antimatter in our own universe.

One of the big unexplained issues in current scientific thinking is to explain the difference between a black hole and the singularity which resulted in the big bang. This can be resolved if we consider that each black hole (and it really is a hole, not just a blob) has a white hole at the other end. Thus matter/antimatter is created all of the time through these mechanisms, not just a one off as in the big bang. What's the evidence for this? Each galaxy has a large black hole at its centre and my argument is that this was the source of the galaxy in the past. Further evidence is that we regularly have gamma ray bursts which may create the star nurseries which are also observed.

Any takers besides myself and Fred Hoyle?

regards
Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

I don't think the current model is exactly right, while it suggests that all of the matter/anti-matter should have formed in the same state and then annihilated, leaving the presence of anything a mystery. I think my model of dark matter particles would have been formed at an earlier time than baryogenesis, locking up most of the anti-matter except for a smattering of it. If I'm correct, we're floating in a sea of neutered anti-quarks which have been rendered non-interactive by their configuration. The other end in space... I can't agree with because topologically it isn't that simple of an object. The other end of a black hole is RIGHT on the other side of the event horizon, the directionality is different in there. Consider the implications of various theories which avoid singularities at the big bang, they describe a "big crunch" on the other side. Imagine what a big crunch process would look like from the inside, and where it would come from. What would collapse an entire Universe into it's fist? Why would it have to be an entire Universe? Gravity has a fist powerful enough to collapse portions of a Universe hard enough to causally separate them from their parent... so that makes the question one of location again, but not in space... it becomes one of location in time. The other end in time, exactly my thoughts. The difference between a black hole and a big bang singularity, is the presence of a Universe around them. A white hole cannot open up inside of a Universe, nor can a big bang, the vacuum is metastable enough to prevent this. When the vacuum unravels and decays into a maximal entropy state, there will be nothing preventing a new Universe opening up, no more event horizons because no meaningful measure of events. If you compress a chunk of gridlines enough, it rips apart from the other lines, and is forced into a very low, possibly minimal entropy state. No room for temporal interaction at all, all of the directions tangled up with each other, only one degree of freedom, outwards, to unfurl. With a Universe on the outside of the horizon, that degree of freedom is blocked, so you get a frozen state. The hole left in the parent Universe is not large enough to properly express the child Universe, so the child cannot unfold, if the space composing the child cannot experience any freedom of directionality, it cannot experience time, so you get a seed waiting to germinate. One actor cannot occupy center stage whilst another is playing their part, at least as far as Universes go. I think your scale is skewed, though the basic idea is workable if you bump your mechanism up to the level of Universes, not mere galaxies.

As usual Max, you try to shoehorn others ideas into your own and when they don't fit you discard them. If you want to pass comment on my model then you at least accord me the civility of reading it first.

[Felix Schrodinger]

secondly - what happened to all of the antimatter in our own universe." It was annhilated, along with most of the matter, Felix. For every proton there are a billion photons, which were created at the time of the big bang, when matter and anti-matter were annhilating each other. So while I like the idea of an anti-matter parallel universe, I don't believe it's necessary to reinstill charge symmetry. P and T symmetry is another matter.

Hi Pat
This explanation is a simple description of what would have to happen under the rules of the current paradigm. There is no account of why matter and antimatter would be created in massive amounts only for them to then anihilate eachother - with a bit left over to allow for our reality. It's a fairy tale IMHO.

regards
Felix

[Max™]

As usual Max, you try to shoehorn others ideas into your own and when they don't fit you discard them. If you want to pass comment on my model then you at least accord me the civility of reading it first.

I was talking about the standard model of the big bang, not your personal model.

Except for this bit: I think your scale is skewed, though the basic idea is workable if you bump your mechanism up to the level of Universes, not mere galaxies.

Which was in response to your personal description given there.


Just to clarify, if I "shoehorn" anything into anything, it is into the accepted physical theories of which I am rather well versed. Not my personal extrapolations.

[Felix Schrodinger]

So do all the black holes in our universe become white holes in a single universe or connect to diverse universes?

As usual, Dippy, you put your finger on the key question.

Let's take one step at a time; if (and it's a big if) we accept the concept that a black hole is indeed a hole and not just a blob with infinite density, then we need to consider what is on the other side of the boundary through which the hole is made. It's convenient to say that the other side is a white hole though there may be many different descriptions of what that looks like. If it's an antimatter mirror of our own world then it gives us a neat explanation for the M/AM problem. It also provides a convenient explanation for the formation of the galaxies and their rotation; neither of which are adequately explained by the currently accepted model.

So what's on the other side? There are a number of possibilities and I have only considered a few which are very much open to argument.

ONE UNIVERSE
The wormhole concept has black holes interconnected within our own universe but does not use the M/AM concept. My version of this has a matter black hole connected to an antimatter white hole; both within our own universe. This obviates the need for a parallel universe at all and means that M and AM exist within our world, being quarantined from eachother by the great distance between the galaxies.

TWO UNIVERSES
The simplest parallel universe model would have just one matter world and one antimatter world existing in balance with eachother and interconnected through the BH/WH connections.

THREE OR MORE
It's quite possible to draw up a concept with a limited number of parallel universes which are interconnected - just like a three dimensional Venn diagram with interlinking through the BH/WHs

MULTIPLE OR INFINITE UNIVERSES
The fishegg concept has parallel universes in such great numbers that our existence is accounted for by pure chance. This popular sci-fi model may be adapted by allowing our BH/WH pairs to be in different parallel universes, providing a link between them.

All of these concepts exist within current scientific considerations but the enjoining of the M/AM concept does not. The big issue that comes from them is that we don't need the big bang; we have instead, a series of small bangs, each resulting in the creation of a galaxy. I see this as the steady state universe which Fred Hoyle was seeking.

regards
Felix