Register to reply

How will the universe end ?

by Abidal Sala
Tags: universe
Share this thread:
alexg
#37
Feb13-12, 01:08 PM
alexg's Avatar
P: 126
Quote Quote by ynot1 View Post
Except in the southern part of the inner Van Allen belt where it's also trapped by magnetic confinement. Seems strange.
What are you talking about? There is no antimatter held in the Van Allen belt. Where do you come up with this?
ynot1
#38
Feb13-12, 02:12 PM
P: 90
Quote Quote by alexg View Post
What are you talking about? There is no antimatter held in the Van Allen belt. Where do you come up with this?
Really? Check out http://www.physicstoday.org/resource...=no&view=print
ynot1
#39
Feb13-12, 03:43 PM
P: 90
Quote Quote by ynot1 View Post
Are you serious? Here is the second sentence of the post you are referencing: "So protons will be part of the end game along with the leptons." To me that leaves protons and the leptons not falling into black holes.
That is interesting. It means when stars collapse to form black holes they lose about 50% of their mass from their protons which don't fall into the black hole.
Drakkith
#40
Feb13-12, 07:10 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,602
Quote Quote by ynot1 View Post
Note matter attracts matter and I should think antimatter attracts antimatter. Also like charges repel. Therefore clouds of charged particles exist in a stable configuration, if such is possible, only if the gravitational attraction is balanced by electrostatic repulsion. If this isn't possible then my idea about clouds of electrons and positrons sinks. However if it is possible then the stable configurations would allow spacetime to shed its entropy. More nonsense I guess.
Again, the current view of physics is that both matter and antimatter are attracted by gravity. Anything is mostly speculation at this point and should be avoided unless you are talking about a specific model, which you are not. Furthermore, please stop posting about your "ideas", as they don't make any sense usually and could be considered to be against PF rules.

Quote Quote by ynot1 View Post
I believe it has been noted already. If antimatter didn't possess reverse gravity (or positive gravity, for that matter) on the surface of the earth they wouldn't have to use magnetic confinement. In orbit, now that would be an interesting experiment.
As has been pointed out they use magnetic confinement because if they didn't the particles would impact the walls of the containment vessel and annihilate with normal matter.

Quote Quote by ynot1 View Post
I don't think like charges will ever be attracted by gravity and so this idea sinks. However it suggests a possible mechanism for CP violation in pair production - the gravitational field.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Gravity has nothing to do with charge according to standard science.

Quote Quote by ynot1 View Post
However note protons do attract protons at subatomic distances per http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v0hcpeTCS4
Protons attract because of the strong force, not because of anything else. Please stop posting links to this guy. At minimum it doesn't meet the requirements for being the "standard model" and shouldn't be discussed here.

Quote Quote by ynot1 View Post
That is interesting. It means when stars collapse to form black holes they lose about 50% of their mass from their protons which don't fall into the black hole.
A large part of the mass of a star is blown outwards in the supernova process. Are you referring to this process or something intrinsic to the black hole formation? And why do you keep quoting yourself? It's very confusing.

Quote Quote by ynot1 View Post
Except in the southern part of the inner Van Allen belt where it's also trapped by magnetic confinement. Seems strange.
Why would this be strange? Antimatter is charged and obeys the same electromagnetic laws that normal matter does. It is far from strange.
ynot1
#41
Feb13-12, 07:58 PM
P: 90
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
Why would this be strange? Antimatter is charged and obeys the same electromagnetic laws that normal matter does. It is far from strange.
Yes except antimatter travels in reverse time. So its electrical and gravitational charge (actually curvature in spacetime) are reversed. Same electromagnetic laws, same gravitational laws, only in reverse time. Note opposite charges curve in opposite directions in an electromagnetic field. I assume matter and antimatter do the same in a gravitational field. It's a matter of symmetry, actually. Sorry about all those obscure posts. I'll try to make them more understandable. Thanks.
Drakkith
#42
Feb13-12, 08:28 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,602
Quote Quote by ynot1 View Post
Yes except antimatter travels in reverse time. So its electrical and gravitational charge (actually curvature in spacetime) are reversed. Same electromagnetic laws, same gravitational laws, only in reverse time. Sorry about all those obscure posts. I'll try to make them more understandable. Thanks.
No, the standard view is that it does NOT travel backwards in time. Please, try to learn the standard view of physics before jumping into things that are "beyond" the standard model. Just because one physicist says that the math shows it might travel backwards in time does not mean it is true.
Dremmer
#43
Feb13-12, 10:38 PM
P: 86
the transition of the universe from the degenerate era to the black hole era and finally to the dark era depends upon whether or not proton decay occurs. If it occurs, it will be relatively soon, if it doesn't occur, it will be much much longer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
ynot1
#44
Feb13-12, 10:58 PM
P: 90
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
No, the standard view is that it does NOT travel backwards in time. Please, try to learn the standard view of physics before jumping into things that are "beyond" the standard model. Just because one physicist says that the math shows it might travel backwards in time does not mean it is true.
Sorry about the standard model. I'd really prefer to go with Einstein, Feynman, and Dirac, if you don't mind.
ynot1
#45
Feb13-12, 11:18 PM
P: 90
Quote Quote by Dremmer View Post
the transition of the universe from the degenerate era to the black hole era and finally to the dark era depends upon whether or not proton decay occurs. If it occurs, it will be relatively soon, if it doesn't occur, it will be much much longer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
Per your reference,

"All predictions of the future of the Earth, the Solar System and the Universe must account for the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy, or a loss of the energy available to do work, must increase over time.[1]"

True for time moving in the forward direction. It seems the opposite would hold for time moving backwards. The universe, being symmetrical, has to do both simultaneously. There is not an arrow of time, there are arrows of time, pointing inwards or outwards depending on your reference. Apologies to you standard model devotees. Call it heresy, or at least non-standard, if you wish.
Chronos
#46
Feb13-12, 11:26 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,387
But, there are no observational examples where time appears to be moving backwards, which places your postulate in the realm of unsupported speculation.
ynot1
#47
Feb13-12, 11:41 PM
P: 90
Quote Quote by Chronos View Post
But, there are no observational examples where time appears to be moving backwards, which places your postulate in the realm of unsupported speculation.
I believe instances of time reversal are quite common in particle physics as used in Feynman diagrams.
ynot1
#48
Feb14-12, 12:30 AM
P: 90
Quote Quote by Chronos View Post
But, there are no observational examples where time appears to be moving backwards, which places your postulate in the realm of unsupported speculation.
On macroscopic scales such time reversals are possible but very improbable per Feynman. Feynman goes on to explain how a mechanical ticking clock can run backwards. He says there's no physical laws to prevent this, and explains exactly how it could happen. The laws of probability (for example, thermodynamics) are not laws of physics. Note however that Feynman explains time reversibility using causality (how you would explain anything with anti-causality mystifies me). Ergo the arrows of time or causality point in both directions. Antimatter is just as much subject to causality as matter.
Chronos
#49
Feb14-12, 03:41 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,387
Er, so do you have an actual observation to cite as opposed to theoretical possibilites?
ynot1
#50
Feb14-12, 07:39 AM
P: 90
Quote Quote by Chronos View Post
Er, so do you have an actual observation to cite as opposed to theoretical possibilites?
Yes I think I mentioned something about that with the Feynman diagrams.
Cosmo Novice
#51
Feb14-12, 07:49 AM
P: 366
Quote Quote by ynot1 View Post
Yes I think I mentioned something about that with the Feynman diagrams.
I *think* Chronos is referring specifically to a physical mechanism rather than a mathematical model.

Mathematical models are not guaranteed to be inherently true for physical mechanisms, if you take relativity and input speed values that exceed c and end up with a negative value for time this is not really indicative of physical reality.
ynot1
#52
Feb14-12, 08:10 AM
P: 90
Quote Quote by Cosmo Novice View Post
I *think* Chronos is referring specifically to a physical mechanism rather than a mathematical model.

Mathematical models are not guaranteed to be inherently true for physical mechanisms, if you take relativity and input speed values that exceed c and end up with a negative value for time this is not really indicative of physical reality.
Ergo chunk that model and come up with something realistic which actually explains physical reality. If you're going to misuse or abuse the mathematical model it won't be very useful.
Cosmo Novice
#53
Feb14-12, 08:33 AM
P: 366
Quote Quote by ynot1 View Post
Ergo chunk that model and come up with something realistic which actually explains physical reality. If you're going to misuse or abuse the mathematical model it won't be very useful.
Yes I agree you should stop doing this. The onus of the burden of proof is on you here - I am not refuting the standard model, nor I am trying to promote that anything can travel back in time without any proof which you seem intent on doing.

So as both me and Chronos have now requested - apart from diagrams/mathematical abstractions - give us a physical mechanism for time reserval? My guess is you cannot and that is why you are skirting around the issue, now if youre in a little over your head then fine, but dont keep pushing this idea forward.

Cosmo
ynot1
#54
Feb14-12, 08:56 AM
P: 90
Quote Quote by Cosmo Novice View Post
Yes I agree you should stop doing this. The onus of the burden of proof is on you here - I am not refuting the standard model, nor I am trying to promote that anything can travel back in time without any proof which you seem intent on doing.

So as both me and Chronos have now requested - apart from diagrams/mathematical abstractions - give us a physical mechanism for time reserval? My guess is you cannot and that is why you are skirting around the issue, now if youre in a little over your head then fine, but dont keep pushing this idea forward.

Cosmo
Sorry I didn't mean to be pushy. The physical mechanism is described well by Feynman but I don't want to push the issue so I'll let you investigate that if it bothers you.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Our Universe Is A Closed Electron In A Far Grander Universe We Can Never See? Cosmology 20
Doughnut-shaped Universe: Astronomers say Universe is small and finite Cosmology 5
If the observable universe were the entire universe, would the mass make it expand? Cosmology 7
Origin of the Universe: Created Universe vs Cyclical Universe Astronomy & Astrophysics 9