Is Antimatter Missing Because It Traveled Back in Time?

[FZ+]

I've just thought of something that may be completely wrong and is just waiting to be kicked down, trodden underfoot etc.

Now a problem with BB is that the theory of it as a case of quantum fluctuations seems to require the production of a particle and anti-particle together, and our measurements of the universe find very little antimatter. It is general presumed to be due to assymetry in decay rates that we get this unequal distribution.

So far, so good?

Now my alternative to this is to consider the original event as being not only at the "centre of the universe" in space, but also to have instead occurred as an event in the "centre of time"(or if not the exact centre, then at some point not at a beginning of time.)

Then, we can speak of the "missing anti matter" as matter that was sent backwards in time from the big bang event, and so cannot be observed.

Now, point out the obvious mistake. There probably is one.

 

[mathman]

The main fallicy of your theory is that when matter antimatter pairs are created nowadays, both particles go forward in time.

A second problem would be in making any quantitative calculation. I think your theory would end up with too much matter and not enough cosmic background radiation.

 

[FZ+]

The main fallicy of your theory is that when matter antimatter pairs are created nowadays, both particles go forward in time.

Ah.. or do they?

Based on my cloudy idea of these things, an antiparticle going forwards in time is mathematically equivalent to a particle going backwards in time, and vice versa. So we have a case of such pair production in any case of particle deflection... Hmm... the suggestion is that the BB can be seen as only a pinch point in the universe's existence. ie.

 view one - particle production...

^  p
 \
  \
   o   - event
   /
  / _
V   p

view two - particle deflection


^  p
 \
  \
   o   - event
   ^
   /
  /   p

Still, just bouncing ideas around. The above screws about causality majorly, of course.

 

[BiologyForums]

What does BB stand for?

 

[mathman]

Based on my cloudy idea of these things, an antiparticle going forwards in time is mathematically equivalent to a particle going backwards in time, and vice versa.

The key word is "mathematically". Physically is something else.

Aside: BB stands for big bang, which according to current theory is how and when the universe started.

 

[BiologyForums]

Oh yeah duh!

I was going through physics words, but it was the obvious one!

Normally people say "the BB" or "BBT" and not "BB" that through me off!

 

[FZ+]

The key word is "mathematically". Physically is something else.

Well, from what I heard, the mathematics is derived to be an accurate model of physical reality. So which physical law would you think disallows this then?

 

[Broken]

Both particles are mathematically described to go forward in time. The law that disallows it to even be mathematically represented "going backwards" is the necessity for positive kinetic energies.

Look at solutions to the Dirac equation for the physical solutions for the electron and positron.

Broken

 

[Brad_Ad23]

The key fallicy in your idea is making the BB the center of something. It was not the center of anything. Every point of spacetime emerged from the BB. Thus, every point of spacetime is the center of the BB. It was an explosion of spacetime, not an explosion in spacetime.

 

[BiologyForums]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
The key fallicy in your idea is making the BB the center of something. It was not the center of anything. Every point of spacetime emerged from the BB. Thus, every point of spacetime is the center of the BB. It was an explosion of spacetime, not an explosion in spacetime.

I'm not saying the BB is the center. I said it occurred AT the center.

All space and matter would travel away from the big bang seemingly identically in all directions - there is nothing to inhibit the light from leaving at the same speed.

Thus the universes space expanded evenly, and thus if we used the universe as a sphere we could easily show the midpoint using calculus.

 

[Hurkyl]

How could the big bang happen at the center (whatever that is) when the big bang happened everywhere? (at least, everywhere within the observable universe)

 

[BiologyForums]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
How could the big bang happen at the center (whatever that is) when the big bang happened everywhere? (at least, everywhere within the observable universe)

When it happened it wasn't the center, but it would be the center now, I would think.

For instance if you take a balloon and stick it on the end of a helium tank, and it sits there. You turn the knob on and helium fills it up.

Let's assume that the round part of the balloon was compacted VERY title at some point X right. Then once you fill up the helium the balloon (let's assume it's a circular balloon) grows in an even circle. If you used to calculus on points on the circle could you not determin the center?

I understand the obvious errors in this - that space is in this example and not in the BBT etc...

I'm aware of those. So let me ask you Hurkyl, is it those problems in the example that, if I understood fully, would solve the issue I might be having?

 

[Hurkyl]

Could you explain your scenario again? It's a little confusing.

 

[BiologyForums]

Sure. Another way I can do this, but I have to use the "G" word. God - or something to this affect.

Let us say that I am this God being that is able to view this universe as it is created right.

This light-cone you speak of was compressed to it's highest amount somewhere. Let's say I was standing by this place and looking at this light-cone.

Now the BB occurs, and I am still standing by watching this "explosion".

I watch it for 20 billions years until this moment. I am STILL staring where the light-cone WAS.

I am staring at this point I am speaking of.

Critique Hurkyl - I'm goin' to the movies BBL!

 

[Hurkyl]

I watch it for 20 billions years until this moment. I am STILL staring where the light-cone WAS.

To stick with the balloon analogy...

So we have a tiny balloon, and you're looking at it. We can't (scientifically) look at the "point of highest compression" because quantum gravity has to take over before we reach a singularity, and we don't know what quantum gravity looks like.

But we're looking at a timeslice of the universe, and it's the surface of this tiny balloon. The "place" at which the big bang happened is over the entire surface of the balloon. (Of course, living in the surface of the balloon, all we know is that it's a closed shape, we don't know, and can't know, that it's a perfectly spherical balloon)

The balloon inflates. So where did the big bang happen? Across the entire surface of the balloon!



It might be most instructive to try and devise and actually perform a thought experiment to determine the center of the big bang.

Let's imagine that we are in a highly compact flat toroidal universe. Let's keep the expansion of space slow so we can ignore the travel time of light.

Now, I'm standing someplace in the universe, which is mysteriously being kept from expanding while I prepare my experiment. I can identify 6 directions, north, south, east, west, up, and down, and I see myself precisely 10 meters away in each of these directions (because light has gone around the universe). In fact, I would also see myself at 20 meters east, at 40 meters up, at (30 meters west + 60 meters north), et cetera.


Now, I've prepared my experiment and wait. Eventually, the distance of repetation has increased to 20 meters, 40 meters, 1000 meters, or whever I want it to stop. How do I go about determining where the center of the big bang was?


Now, suppose the universe collapses back to its original state. I walk one meter east and perform my experiment again. Do I get the same point for the center of the big bang, or are my new results one meter east of my old results?

 

[FZ+]

Hmm... I am now greatly confused, but I don't think the idea requires the BB to be in the middle of anything at all, just at any position in time that is not the beginning, from whence it simultaneously "caused" the particles after the BB, and the particles before it. ( it may well even be indistinguishible from any other instant in spacetime. Not just everywhere, but at everytime.) Basically, I am assuming that that which "caused it all" is not at the beginning of it all.

But yes... I can see some problems with it now.

 

[NEOclassic]

Fz+'s thought experiment paradoxical!

The age of the Earth and the entire solar system is about 6 billion years so that arguments that our anti-matter was created in the BB belie the reality of the time (15-20 billion Earth years) since the alleged BB. The position of the SS is perhaps 6000 ly from the axis of galaxy rotation so it is logical that nature's creation engine must have been distributed along the semi-bar of the galaxy. Real symmetry predicts that in the opposite semi-bar an antimatter engine exists; if that is the case then alternate spiral arms account for where all the antimatter in the galaxy is.
Call this post science fiction if you please since it is my "thought experiment" of where our positrons came from. Ipse dixit, Jim