1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The world of anti-matter

  1. Aug 7, 2010 #1
    The world of anti-matter sounds like something only for fiction stories because scientific professionals seem to have not found enough reason to believe it yet. I in fact is not a professional in physics (I am a philosopher) but I like to read physics. I see the world of anti-matter to be quite possibly real, not by fictitious imagination, but by reason.

    Some scientific professionals have been telling us that there were huge amount of anti-matter during the early period of this universe, much more than the total amount of matter we are having today in the observable universe. And then, according to the scientific professionals, most anti-matter collided with matter then turn back to energy
    together, and the rest of a litter amount of anti-matter just disappeared, and left the matter to form the universe today.

    For the mysterious reason of the disapearance of the rest of anti-matter, scientific professionals have made some assumption that they just decayed, which seem have not been universally accepted among scientific professionals.

    However, in the mean time, scientific professionals have also been telling us that the space is expanding, and the rapid expansion have created some physically isolated regions, which could not communicate with each other AT ALL because their recession speed is greater than speed of light. Well, this IN FACT provides a much cleaner and better explanation for the disappearance of the rest of anti-matter:

    at the very beginning, there were matter and anti-matter, but their distribution in space-time was not completely absolutely homogeneous, at the different remote sides of the "cloud", some was occupied by excess of matter and some other was occupied by excess of anti-matter. When most matter and anti-matter were colliding with each other and turned back to energy, those remote orphan matter and anti-matter were left out because their counter-parties were in the region with recession speed relative
    to them greater than light speed. And then these matter and anti-matter cooled down to form their own universes, which would not communicate with each other due to the greater than light speed recession speed.

    If what I laid out above is the truth, then a world of anti-matter would exist somewhere and would not communicate with our universe in non-quantum manner. Maybe we don't need to worry about their coming back. But would that possible for us to meet with them in some quantum way and then together turn back to energy?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 8, 2010 #2
    I think sooner rather than later we will learn the harness the unlimited potential of energy released when matter and anti-M meet...and use it for all types of energy needs. I just wonder if we are mature enough as sentient beings....not to kill ourselves in the process?
     
  4. Aug 8, 2010 #3

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Your post is rife with misinformation and severe misunderstanding. For example, can you cite which "scientific professional" actually claim that these antimatter "decays" away and that is the cause of the matter-antimatter imbalance?

    The FACT right now is that we still do not have a clear idea on what causes the matter-antimatter imbalance. This is still an active research area, meaning that we're still trying to find out. There are possible and plausible explanation for this, such as the CP-violation that has been seen in kaon decays.

    Please do not make speculative post based on handwaving theory. This is clearly not allowed, per the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380" that you had agreed to. If you do not understand something, ask. But try to resist from using your lack of understanding as the foundation to speculate on other things.

    Zz.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
  5. Aug 8, 2010 #4
    Zz :

    Obviously you did not read my post carefully before you lost your temper and got excited....you admited that "The FACT right now is that we still do not have a clear idea on what causes the matter-antimatter imbalance. "....but you did not read carefully to find out that the whole point of this article is to provide a new explanation to the cause....not to repeat the decay (you could easily find article on this online) or CP-Violation explanation.....please calm down and read carefully before you make any comment which I believe is what you agreed when join this site.......

    Ron
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
  6. Aug 8, 2010 #5
    Now, now girls, no squabbling, puh-lease!!!!!

    Zapper tends to purism in physics and does appear a tad parochial at times...but having said that, he's correct in saying your post seems to be pure speculation. On the other hand, almost all "consensus science" over history has been incorrect, sometimes for even a thousand years, so we should be able to take a broader view and feel less constrained by "experts"....

    The incredible homogeneity at the orign of the universe would seem to make it unlikely that there were significant regions of matter here and anti matter there...at least unlikely until someone develops a theory that could explain both phenomena...thought I'd check that thought............. 30 seconds of online research turned up this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

    So you can philosophize all you like, and the quote might even be proven incorrect in the future, but a little inquiry can help focus your curiosity.
     
  7. Aug 8, 2010 #6
    Naty1:

    Thanks for the comment.....but, of course I read what you spent 30 seconds before I wrote this post because VERY honestly to you wikipedia is my main source of information.......however, I don't see any conflict between what I am trying to propose here and what wikipedia is telling there:

    1) If you spend another 30 seconds you might find from wiki or somewhere else that the mass we have in the universe today is not "significant" compared to what had existed before really "significant" matter and antimatter collided with each other....

    2) If what left out matter universe and antimatter universes was truely located remotely enough so that their recession speed were greater than speed of light as I "philosophized" here, then we would not see any blazing resulting from the collision of matter and antimatter in their "neighboring" region except for the cosmic background radiation left by the original matter and antimatter collisions, which scientific professionals have detected........
     
  8. Aug 8, 2010 #7
    Naty1:

    Thanks again for you already mentioned in the quotation that the matter universe we are having today was not "siginificant" at early time:

    The amount of matter presently observable in the universe only requires an imbalance in the early universe on the order of one extra matter particle per billion matter-antimatter particle pairs

    ......

    thanks for the contribution

    Ron
     
  9. Aug 8, 2010 #8
    darkmatter:

    I believe what you said.....and I am not sure what you exactly mean by "mature enough as sentient beings", but I do think it would be possible for someone to exploit the very possible chance to turn it into weaponry usage for killing......if this is exactly you mean, I fully agree that we have reason to worry......but I also believe in GOD......

    thanks!
    Ron
     
  10. Aug 8, 2010 #9

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    If you are offering "a new explanation", then either you point to us where such an explanation has been published, or it is YOU who did not read the PF Rules that you had agreed to regarding speculative, personal theory.

    Zz.
     
  11. Aug 8, 2010 #10
    Zz:

    I guess that you are confusing a lot people here.....as a PF MENTOR, I believe you should know the fact that a lot of opinion people are expressing here are NOT published but their own because I don't think this is a place solely for someone to come here to teach others what they have learned somewhere else like what you obviously love to do (thanks for that)...........
     
  12. Aug 8, 2010 #11

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Then you need to tell me which part of the PF Rules that you read that you did not understand? We have a clear policy on such a thing.

    It is one thing to want to ask something that one doesn't understand. It is another to propose something new, especially when it is based on faulty understanding. PF became this popular because it maintains a high signal-to-noise ratio. If you want to propose something new, please use the IR forum, as clearly stated in the rules.

    This thread is done.

    Zz.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook