Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

After the big-bang

  1. Dec 23, 2007 #1
    If after the big-bang, anti mass would have had the upperhand,
    would the universe, as we can observe, it have another aspect ?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 23, 2007 #2

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Not sure I'm following you. When you say anti mass, are you reffering to antimatter, negative energy, or something else?

    Adn then you want to speculate about how the universe would be different if this anti mass was more abundant than normal mass, right?
     
  4. Dec 23, 2007 #3

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    that's what I think---I hope someone more knowledgeable will weigh in on this. I think the universe would have looked essentially the same except that the prevailing matter would be ANTI.
    You and I, or whatever accidentally happend to evolve in our place, would be made of Antimatter instead.

    Personally I don't understand the slight asymmetry which is supposed to have favored one over the other. As far as I can see it might have been just luck. After inflation (if it happend) maybe there was 51 percent one kind and 49 percent the other-----and there was a whole lot of cancelation which annihilated most of it (98 percent to be exact) and left that little surplus.

    Some people offer explanations for why our kind had to dominate. maybe you have followed these explanations and can paraphrase.

    I have to go, back later.
     
  5. Dec 24, 2007 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If anti-matter were more abundant than matter, we'd call anti-matter matter and matter anti-matter.
     
  6. Dec 24, 2007 #5
    Then antimatter would be called matter and matter would be called antimatter.

    EDIT: ****, lol. I wrote this a while ago when I was viewing the thread and I forgot to press post. I came home pressed post and apparntly someone else said it too. lol
     
  7. Dec 24, 2007 #6

    sas3

    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    Maybe we already do. Or not?
     
  8. Dec 25, 2007 #7
    has anti-matters gravity been measured ?
    or is that currently impossable with our teck
     
  9. Dec 25, 2007 #8

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Gravity does not care whether we are matter or anti matter, at least that is what they say. The posited graviton is a spin 2 particle [in theory]. Integer spin particles do not not have anti particle counterparts according to current theory.
     
  10. Jan 9, 2010 #9
    Re: anti-mass

    I believe that there's an equal amount. Who says that matter won anything and that there was something to win? One of the hardest things about what cannot be seen is counting it.
     
  11. Jan 9, 2010 #10
    Re: anti-mass

    It seems to me that if there were significant amounts anti-matter left in the universe then there would be collisions between matter and anti-matter galaxies (or matter and anti-matter stars) somewhere and the characteristic gammas that result would be detected.

    Can one of the more seasoned experts point to any publicly available papers that are accessible to an intelligent newbie which explain the latest thinking on the Baryon Asymmetry problem and discuss the extent to which it is believed to be an open or resolved problem?
     
  12. Jan 9, 2010 #11
    Re: anti-mass

    You have a good point but if one takes into consideration that the accumulation of matter increases mass which increases gravity... anti-matter should have gravity of it's own kind (not-anti gravity). I believe that the two masses would gravitate away from each other. Anti-gravity is using real matter mass and gravity as the basis, not anti-matter mass and gravity. It's a possibility, otherwise you'd have matter and anti-matter colliding all of the time and there would be plenty of signs. Here's one thing... when anti-matter and matter collide... they destroy each other... where does that energy go? Equally in each form of energy and anti-energy? Either way you'd see this energy in some form from heat to radio and even microwaves. Interesting stuff either way. :)
     
  13. Jan 9, 2010 #12

    Nabeshin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: anti-mass

    Unfortunately [?], the universe doesn't really care what you believe.

    Matter and antimatter gravitate identically. They annihilate (and indeed, are drawn to eachother) primarily because the hallmark charactaristic of antimatter is an opposite electrical charge. This is precisely why there cannot be an equal amount of matter and antimatter (which you admit...), because they give off a ton of radiation when they annihilate (and it's very difficult to keep them from doing so).

    Also, "anti-energy" is a somewhat ambiguous term, and is not applicable to this scenario anyways. When matter and anti-matter annihilate, they release good old gamma radiation (very energetic photons) with energy precisely equal to their combined mass times c^2.
     
  14. Jan 9, 2010 #13
    Re: anti-mass

    Actually, to correct you, it's been proven that thoughts have mass which can affect the physical universe. Therefore your rude comment that the universe doesn't care what I believe is incorrect. Furthermore all known theories are subject to scrutiny, revision and abandonment.

    Again you're just counting what is seen. Visible matter accounts for about 5% of the matter in the universe, as the universe is still expanding and they've also concluded that it will continue to do so (and not contract). There are only new guesses as to what the other 95% is (dark matter, etc). When we can only explain +/- 5% of the matter in the universe then I'd say there's a whole lot more work to be done on the subject and new ideas should be welcomed.

    As far as anti-energy, there is a lot of work being done on over-unity energy production and that energy must come from somewhere. If it's not in a form that is detectable prior to its being obtained, (as detractors like to say) as if from thin air, then it states that the energy is being converted from a previously unconsidered (invisible) source. But I'm sure that you have a completely logical and text-book answer for that one.

    Relax man, this is called a forum; for the sharing of information and ideas and I'm not your enemy.
     
  15. Jan 9, 2010 #14

    Nabeshin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: anti-mass

    This is a different problem entirely though! You're talking about DM and DE, neither of which have much relation to antimatter. The fact is that if antimatter existed in significant quantities, it would emit a noticeable gamma ray signature upon annihilation with normal matter. Welcoming new ideas is all fine and well, but we should both a) avoid creating unnecessary entities which cannot be experimentally detected and b) avoid contradicting what we already know about the universe.

    Also, with regards to DM and DE, it may be true that we aren't very sure what exactly these entities are at this time. However, we do know, to a high degree of certainty, how these entities behave.

    I'm not very sure what you're talking about here. It almost seems as if you're describing potential energy as something "magic". For example, there is nothing detectable about the energy in a rock 5 meters above my head, but it will certainly gain energy as it falls. Did the energy appear from an invisible source? Not really. Am I misunderstanding what you're talking about here?

    I apologize for the tone, but PF is, above all else, a place for discussing the current state of scientific theory. That said, we get a lot of people on here harping their own personal theories and very often these people seem to have some sort of vendetta against what scientists have been discovering the past several hundred years. It's a bit ridiculous sometimes, and what you were (are) saying seems to border on that line. Some degree of speculation is welcomed, but just be mindful of that line.
     
  16. Jan 9, 2010 #15
    Re: anti-mass

    Thank you for that and I agree with you pertaining the forum and new ideas. I hold no grudge against classical/current science as it is the foundation of new science... I just notice how, conversely to what you correctly stated, current science fights against the new. I'll limit the unconventional ideas but I also use the forum to see what others in-the-know can offer in response to them so I can learn from them.

    Pertaining to over-unity it is not potential energy (as in the rock) but energy obtained from what appears to be just "space" itself. I won't go into it on this thread but I'm always open to discussing it.

    Also I just wanted to add that the gravitation of antimatter and matter is still mostly hypothetical and it's well known that we have neither the tech nor sufficient antimatter to perform the tests required to come up with sufficient data to make an incontrovertible statement.

    Cheers!
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2010
  17. Jan 9, 2010 #16

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Re: anti-mass

    We know a great deal about the properties of anti matter. We routinely use them for tasks like PET scans and CERN has collected anti hydrogen in the ATHENA project.
     
  18. Jan 10, 2010 #17
  19. Jan 10, 2010 #18
    Re: anti-mass

    The tags "matter" and "antimatter" are naming conventions. Globally renaming protons to antiprotons and antiprotons to protons would greatly reduce the matter-antimatter imbalance in the universe without changing any theory.

    The point I'm attempting to make, here, is that the right question regarding observed particle species imbalance has not been well asked. Better answers come from better questions. What is the correct question?
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2010
  20. Jan 10, 2010 #19

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Re: anti-mass

    Springerlink is a crackpot friendly site intended to entertain, not inform.
     
  21. Jan 10, 2010 #20
    Re: anti-mass

    What part of the linked page did you find cracked?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: After the big-bang
  1. After the Big Bang (Replies: 1)

Loading...