No, there are highly speculative theories regarding that kind of thing but no such assumption.There is an assumption in cosmology say that there is another universe Composed of antiparticles?
I mean that the atom composed of positron rather than an electron, anti-proton rather than a proton and anti-neutron rather than a neutron.
The problem that has not been solved is why matter exists? Big bang led to a lot of energy, where photons can split into matter and antimatter pairs. Why is there an excess of matter?
It seems highly unlikely, since these particles are created in pairs, so it is hard to see how they could separate on a large scale.A boring (because I think its untestable) proposal might be that its anthropic.
The early universe was infinite in extent, there are many post-expansion regions where complete annihilation took place and some regions where either anti-matter or matter (by chance) pre-dominated. We can only exist in one of those areas, and we will name the region where we exist as "matter", not "anti-matter", because we can't completely shed the human pre-disposition to believe we are special.
Are there models that eliminate such conjecture by showing that large areas of either matter or anti-matter occurring by chance in an infinite universe are not possible?
No, there are highly speculative theories regarding that kind of thing but no such assumption.
believe me, I don't knowA boring (because I think its untestable) proposal might be that its anthropic.
The early universe was infinite in extent, there are many post-expansion regions where complete annihilation took place and some regions where either anti-matter or matter (by chance) pre-dominated. We can only exist in one of those areas, and we will name the region where we exist as "matter", not "anti-matter", because we can't completely shed the human pre-disposition to believe we are special.
Are there models that eliminate such conjecture by showing that large areas of either matter or anti-matter occurring by chance in an infinite universe are not possible?
Big bang led to a lot of energy, where photons can split into matter and antimatter pairs.
It seems highly unlikely, since these particles are created in pairs
As stated in my previous post, your underlying assumption here, that the matter in our current universe was created as particle-antiparticle pairs from photons, is not correct.
We don't know enough about whatever process created the one part in a billion excess of matter in our universe to tell whether it is possible that there are other "universe" regions which had an excess of antimatter over matter instead.
The propositions put forth in posts #4 and #7 are not borne out by observations of the microwave background radiation.
Is there an equal amount of plus/minus charge in the Universe?
Exactly. We would just call it matter since as has already been pointed out, the distinction is arbitrary anyway.Hi
If the early universe created one more anti-matter in a billion over matter, then would stars, planets and life still evolve with opposite charges within atoms?
Well, the distinction is arbitrary up to interacting with stars, planets and life of opposite charge; exchanging space probes, trading cards and letters, and handshakes leads to annihilation... :)Exactly. We would just call it matter since as has already been pointed out, the distinction is arbitrary anyway.
No, we would call whatever world we lived in matter and the other stuff anti-matter, just like we do now. It's just words. The anti-matter would, as you say annihilate with our matter.Well, the distinction is arbitrary up to interacting with stars, planets and life of opposite charge; exchanging space probes, trading cards and letters, and handshakes leads to annihilation... :)
If there were areas where annihilations didn't take place they would show up as anisotropies in the microwave background radiation that just aren't there. Similarly, if there were a vast number of annihilations leaving a small excess of matter particles, the gamma radiation left from the annihilations would show up as a higher radiation excess than observed as the radiation of recombination.Please give more details and references; I don't understand what you are referring to here.
If there were areas where annihilations didn't take place they would show up as anisotropies in the microwave background radiation that just aren't there. Similarly, if there were a vast number of annihilations leaving a small excess of matter particles, the gamma radiation left from the annihilations would show up as a higher radiation excess than observed as the radiation of recombination.
If there were areas where annihilations didn't take place they would show up as anisotropies in the microwave background radiation that just aren't there. Similarly, if there were a vast number of annihilations leaving a small excess of matter particles, the gamma radiation left from the annihilations would show up as a higher radiation excess than observed as the radiation of recombination.
Do you have references to support these claims? You appear to be saying that our best current model of the universe is wrong. You need to back up such a claim with strong evidence.
In particular, are you aware that the ratio of photons to baryons has been measured and is about a billion to one? (That is the basis for my statement in post #7 that the excess of matter over antimatter was about one part in a billion.)
If you take a look at the distribution of quasars in the universe there seems to be a "quasar spherical void" roughly one billion lightyears in radius around us. How to interpret these observations?
How about "accretion rates onto SMBHs in galaxy centers drastically decreased as galaxy mergers become much rarer"?
Do I understand you correctly
No, you do not :)
That seems overly pessimistic. Do you really think we will never figure it out?... these observations (quasar distribution + CMB anisotropies) will remain a mystery to science.
That seems overly pessimistic. Do you really think we will never figure it out?
They do not imply any such thing. There is no center. I think you are confusing the Observable Universe, which DOES have a center of course, with The Universe, which does not.... I'm sceptical whether these findings indicate that the Universe has a center (which these spherical CMB anisotropies, and spherical distribution of quasars are implying),
I think you're overselling their significance.How to interpret these observations? That is not up to me, but they are significant measurements not to be ignored.
The quantized redshift is like the large-scale structures and voids that sometimes pop up in the literature - for every paper that says they exist, there's another showing them to be artefacts of the statistical methods employed in analysing the data. That does not constitute convincing evidence that periodicity exists, and for anyone not involved in researching this topic is best to ignore it. Same as one ignores any other claim presented with insufficient evidence.(There's about 250 million light years space between every shell in this picture).
That's not what the picture shows (paper, couldn't find the exact source of the figure, but this is the same author and discussion). It suggests a quasar-less sheet-like void, 3 Gpc away (bisecting the picture vertically), not an Earth-centred spherical one.If you take a look at the distribution of quasars in the universe there seems to be a "quasar spherical void" roughly one billion lightyears in radius around us.
Yes, I'm aware, and I have no objection to your statement. I was merely pointing out that there should be an artifact of the gamma rays produced during the era of annihilation and there isn't. If you're suggesting that the photon to baryon ratio is a product of the era of annihilation as opposed to the era of recombination, then we should also see a separate remnant from the era of recombination. (By the way, if the microwave background radiation is due to recombination then it shouldn't be considered as thermal blackbody radiation, but rather as a redshifted lyman alpha emission line!)Do you have references to support these claims? You appear to be saying that our best current model of the universe is wrong. You need to back up such a claim with strong evidence.
I'm not making any claims, I'm merely posing questions that need to be addressed if we are to have a full understanding of the origin of the universe.
In particular, are you aware that the ratio of photons to baryons has been measured and is about a billion to one? (That is the basis for my statement in post #7 that the excess of matter over antimatter was about one part in a billion.)
I was merely pointing out that there should be an artifact of the gamma rays produced during the era of annihilation
we should also see a separate remnant from the era of recombination
It suggests a quasar-less sheet-like void, 3 Gpc away (bisecting the picture vertically), not an Earth-centred spherical one
You observe them also in centres of relatively nearby galaxies in all directions. But I think you're asking why do they peak in activity at roughly the same distance?My point: if you observe quasars (that represent the Universe's toddler years) in the centers of the most distant galaxies in all directions, then how does this not make us the center?
You observe them also in centres of relatively nearby galaxies in all directions
It should be the same, yes. For the reasons given above. I.e., every (comoving) observer sees the universe at the same age, so every age-dependent distribution should be the same.but a galaxy far away from us, say in between us and our observable Universe, isn't seeing the same distribution of quasars in all directions, right?
Yes, it's the same no matter where you are in the universe. Again, there is no center.Or is the distribution of quasars, just like the CMB anisotropy, distributed the same way for every galaxy?