# Antimatter Gravity Wells

#### Gibsense

Maybe I am just tired. Whatever I want to fix this idea.
I imagine the universe as a sphere (ok boring but..) the drawn representative circle cannot be smooth. It must be roughened by loads of gravity wells drawn as delves in the surface. On the opposing side of the circle (universe) would be the same roughness caused by gravity wells. All this graphic is of course dimension reduced.
The gravity wells on the opposite side would be viewed as humps if it were possible to see them and of course with time running in the opposite direction they would be (relatively) antimatter.

So, what if anti-matter existed locally; how would we draw it in my simplistic way? Instead of wells, we would draw them as humps. To anyone who has understood my idea of radial distance as a description of time this would mean that the mass in gravity wells and the mass in gravity humps were separated by time. Anhilliation avoided? Would we, could we, equate antimatter with Dark Matter in some way? Probably nonsense but does the idea have any merit?

Catastrophe

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Gibsense, as you may have noticed, I like the sphere idea - but there are at least two ways of looking at this analogy.

The simplest understanding is where the sphere (remember, a sphere is a 2D surface) represents flatlander space, and the radius (as perceived by a higher dimensional being - a flatlander cannot) represents the time dimension. Thus expansion of a universe, according to this analogy, is represented by the 2D 'universe' expanding over time. The objection to this analogy is that it separates space and time, rather than involving spacetime. I don't care. I only want to suggest overcoming the problem of "expansion into what?".

Another analogy is for the sphere (2D surface) represents a universe, including the time dimension, and thus the sphere represents spacetime. Just for helping to understand the idea of expansion, I find the first analogy easier - whilst understanding that it is not the best 'fit'.
For me, this does not help me to understand the "into what?" problem.

You, if I understand you correctly, and you are absolutely entitled to make your own choice, prefer to think of the sphere as representing 3D - but do you then not need to give the 2D sphere some thickness. Thus you would be thinking of a 3D bubble, rather than a 2D geometrical sphere.

Perhaps the "source of confusion" is mine, in that I only want to use the analogy to suggest the need for 2D approach to require a higher dimensional observer to understand the conception of expansion - to avoid the question "expansion into what?".

I would much appreciate clarification of your objective in considering 3D space here.

If you are addressing something other than the "expansion into what" problem, then I can withdraw from that line, as it is different from my objective. I am only using an analogy.

Cat

#### Gibsense

Ok will tackle asap.

[/url][/IMG]
Hi Cat,
First to address the issue of 'What is outside?'

IMO this is the situation. Cosmologists/Mathematicians explain this by using the expression "Embedding Space". It is not meant to be a real 'stuff'. It is a mathematical convenience. However although not "stuff" there is a dimensional reality even if it is only dimensionally real; due to, and at, the existence of our universe.
The idea that something real exists 'outside' is acceptable to string theorists (Branes etc) but it is a bit like space beyond the solar system/galaxy - there is no Ether (apparently) and its reality becomes questionable; no absolute reference place or time (apparently). If it were not for virtual particles, and the fact that space has shape, it would be difficult to say that space existed.
If our universe has a boundary it is, to me, highly likely that we are only a small part of a mishmash of other bounded objects defined by their dimensional status.

Second, then is your issue with the 3D / 2D space analogy. I am not entirely sure what the problem is but I will try as best as my opinion/understanding will allow. Sorry about the number of words!

You have invented an analogy to show how it might be that space expands (the sphere increases in size and separates galaxies speedily without them moving. Hence the separation speed can exceed the speed of light (because the galaxies do not move). Your model is a sphere with a 2D surface (like the surface on a normal ball).
However, your analogy corresponds to illustrations by Astronomers called the balloon analogy.; as you blow up the balloon dots on its surface separate without moving position (they have a separation speed if you keep blowing).

So far so good.
So - my guess, is you suggest it may be a serious model to describe our universe's reality if we think of it as a representation drawn with one dimension less than reality. Further, you suggest that 2D flatlanders would notice the separation speed but not the explanation because they could only view in 2 Dimensions and not the three required to envisage a sphere.
However, their mathematicians could describe curvature due to the angles of a triangle measured on the sphere surface not meeting the expectation of their understood concept: a flat plane - but only mathematically.

OK, but now we have a problem. Our space is 3D not 2D. How can this 2D model surface be representative of us; our space? How can we make the surface thick to make it 3D? It doesn't seem to make any sense! The answer lies in the 2D flatlander's similar experience: we rely on our mathematicians.

Our mathematicians have hundreds of years ago - for fun - provided an answer. Mathematically it is a hypersphere the surface of which is 3D without thinking of thickness. It 'just is' 3D, but to draw it we have to drop a dimension to draw a sphere. The question then is is the drawing of a sphere valid?

If we cut a ball in half on its diameter and view it end-on we can see a circle. The circumference and diameter measured this way correctly describe the diameter and circumference of the original ball. Similarly, a hypersphere cut in half at its diameter is a sphere having a diameter and circumference that match those of the hypersphere (fact). So, we can examine some hypersphere characteristics relevant to our current cosmology puzzles.

So, in summary, we accept that mathematically the surface of a hypersphere is 3D.
There is no limitation to your analogy to just expansion - it can be extended to more issues.

The remaining issue is spacetime.
The 'age of the universe' (13.77 billion years) when used as the diameter of a spherically shaped universe correctly describes the expansion of the surface (for example the Hubble Constant). Each added second adds the correct amount of space to the circumference.
This suggests that time is a process of expansion. Time and expansion of space are locked together. Hence Spacetime. However, the concept shown in the diagram is different.

You can see in the diagram that time (or if you like, expansion) has no specific dimension. Unlike the normal interpretation that time is a separate and specific dimension

But, this is just the n-sphere; the time driver may well be a specific dimension but it is not part of our sphere even though the time matches (illustrated in a recent post).

Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
939
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
2K