How will the universe end ?

ynot1

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.

ynot1

Except in the southern part of the inner Van Allen belt where it's also trapped by magnetic confinement. Seems strange.

alexg

What are you talking about? There is no antimatter held in the Van Allen belt. Where do you come up with this?

ynot1

Really? Check out http://www.physicstoday.org/resource...=no&view=print

ynot1

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

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.

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.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Gravity has nothing to do with charge according to standard science.

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.

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.

Why would this be strange? Antimatter is charged and obeys the same electromagnetic laws that normal matter does. It is far from strange.

ynot1

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

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

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

Sorry about the standard model. I'd really prefer to go with Einstein, Feynman, and Dirac, if you don't mind.

ynot1

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

But, there are no observational examples where time appears to be moving backwards, which places your postulate in the realm of unsupported speculation.

ynot1

I believe instances of time reversal are quite common in particle physics as used in Feynman diagrams.

ynot1

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

Er, so do you have an actual observation to cite as opposed to theoretical possibilites?

ynot1

Yes I think I mentioned something about that with the Feynman diagrams.

Cosmo Novice

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.