# Fixing the matter-antimatter problem

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

#### LeTonny

##### Guest
Ok, bear with me on this one.

Let's go back to the time when the universe was cooling down after the Big Bang just enough to enable the
forming of matter, and antimatter.
So we have this big soup full of energy, matter and antimatter. This soup is continuously (perhaps not lineairly)
cooling down, despite the constant creation and annihilation of these matter and antimatter particles.

Somewhere between the point of starting to form both matter and antimatter and the formation of protons,
neutrons and such, scientists think an imbalance occured. Only an imbalance at this point could explain the
actual existance of all the matter today, but no definitive answer has been thought up for the question what
was the origin of this imbalance.

First we have to remember at this point in time after the Big Bang, it is assumed the number of matter and
antimatter are equal. Logically, this leads to the conclusion for every partical there is an antipartical and the pair, upon
colliding will annihilate both of them.
Now suppose the distribution of both matter and antimatter is uniform. (Why wouldn't it? Why would there be
any clustering?) So, we have this big souplike substance, containing uniformly distributed particles matter
and antimatter.

They collide and annihilate eachother. But not all matter and antimatter particals 'find' eachother at the same time.
Now my 2nd assumption kicks in. Gravity between the matterparticles and anti-gravity between the antimatterparticles
is present. Let's assume gravity makes matterparticles move towards eachother. In this process they inevitably will
collide with antimatter, but the odd few particles could survive.

My 3rd assumption would be that where matter has gravity, antimatter has its anti-gravity. But, where gravity makes
matter attract other matter, anti-gravity (being the opposite force) makes antimatterparticles move away from eachother.

Now, combine these assumptions with the reality of that moment. A relatively dense soup of particles annihilating
eachother, but at the same time clustering of matter and declustering of antimatter.

Where in the bulge of the soup, all is annihilated, all is turned into radiation, fleeing in all directions with the
speed of light. On the edges of the soup, tho', antimatter is forcing itself away from the soup, while matter is
fleeing toward eachother. This would, on average, cause the speed of matter to be slightly slower than that of the
antimatter. This would create room between the two kinds of particals, therefor reducing the possibility of creating
matter/antimatter pairs that would annihilate.

Not too many matter and antimatter particles, ofcourse, would walk this way, but not too many need to, when taking into account that only one partical matter in about a billion matter/antimatterpair needs to escape.

N

#### neuvik

##### Guest
LeTonny":mxpfteog said:
...
Now suppose the distribution of both matter and antimatter is uniform. (Why wouldn't it? Why would there be
any clustering?) So, we have this big souplike substance, containing uniformly distributed particles matter
and antimatter.

If the distribution of antimatter and matter were uniform that would denote equal amount of both antimatter and matter….however we know that is not true given that we are in fact excess matter.

L

#### LeTonny

##### Guest
The initial creation of matter and antimatter could well have been uniform.
When you continue reading my explanation, you will find that the endresult
indeed will deliver the existing excess matter.

So the fact that today an excess matter exists, does not necessarily imply
a non-uniform creation of matter and antimatter.

N

#### neuvik

##### Guest
LeTonny":zkwp09zt said:
The initial creation of matter and antimatter could well have been uniform.
When you continue reading my explanation, you will find that the endresult
indeed will deliver the existing excess matter.

So the fact that today an excess matter exists, does not necessarily imply
a non-uniform creation of matter and antimatter.

So where is the equal amount of antimatter equating to the mass of our known universe?

O

#### origin

##### Guest
The problem is that antimatter does not exhibit anitgravity, so your conjecture does not work....

L

#### LeTonny

##### Guest
Good question. As stated, both matter and antimatter on the edge of the soup 'escape' the annihilation in the 'middle'.
So, a part of the 'missing' antimatter is described. Also, I mentioned all the annihilations caused radiation. This predominantly gammaradiation is just another form of energy. Since only a very small part of the initial energy eventually ended up in either matter or antimatter, most of it changed form to (anti)matter and then transformed into radiation.
This is the radiation that is being called the echo of the Big Bang, the backgroundnoise we still can 'hear'. But, just like with soundwaves, in order to 'hear' this radiation, it has to be reflected. Only after the radiation is reflected, it will be possible for us to pick it up.
As explained, all the gamma rays moved away from the soup in all directions with the speed of light, while annihilation was going on. Therefor, at that time there simply wasn't anything outside the soup to reflect the radiation, ergo no reflection.
This makes it easy to conclude that what was radiated back then and never reflected, can never be measured, yet it holds the vast majority of all the initial energy! So maybe not the antimatter but the initial gamma radiation contains all the 'missing' matter (E=mc^2, therefor the energy contained in that radiation is easily calculated back to matter).

L

#### LeTonny

##### Guest
@Origin
Could you explain your statement of antigravity not existing? To my knowledge, only a very limited number
of antimatterparticles have ever been created (but not observed because of the energy levels present!).
Far too few to actually measure whether or not gravity or antigravity has any effect on them.

Ofcourse, my theory is just that, but so are all other theories concerning antimatter I'm afraid. So, I invite
you to explain your knowledge of antigravity not existing.

N

#### neuvik

##### Guest
LeTonny":2nl1swek said:
Good question. As stated, both matter and antimatter on the edge of the soup 'escape' the annihilation in the 'middle'. So, a part of the 'missing' antimatter is described.
The question still remains, where is it. I don’t care how the antimatter spilled from the soup bowl, its got to be somewhere….maybe the universal bib?

LeTonny":2nl1swek said:
Also, I mentioned all the annihilations caused radiation. ….
…. So maybe not the antimatter but the initial gamma radiation contains all the 'missing' matter (E=mc^2, therefor the energy contained in that radiation is easily calculated back to matter).

Again for that mass of antimatter in your uniform concept to be annihilated would mean the excess mass of matter that we ourselves are made of; would have been converted to energy. Sooo…insert E=MC^2 for credence and hope nobody wants empirical evidence?

LeTonny":2nl1swek said:
Ofcourse, my theory is just that, but so are all other theories concerning antimatter I'm afraid. So, I invite
you to explain your knowledge of antigravity not existing.
Actually what is written in your original post does not meet the definition of a theory. It is more along the line of gibberish.

L

#### LeTonny

##### Guest
neuvik":3pppkppq said:
LeTonny":3pppkppq said:
Good question. As stated, both matter and antimatter on the edge of the soup 'escape' the annihilation in the 'middle'. So, a part of the 'missing' antimatter is described.
The question still remains, where is it. I don’t care how the antimatter spilled from the soup bowl, its got to be somewhere….maybe the universal bib?

The anti-matter you're so looking for, is the antimatter I explained to have fled from the soup because of the
effects of antigravity. The antimatterparticals are, just like the bulk of the gammaradiation, moving away in all
directions with speeds close to the speed of light. Therefor that amount of matter may also never be measured,
unless a method is found to actually measure antigravity. This antigravityfield should be present everywhere,
just like the backgroundnoise is everywhere.

LeTonny":3pppkppq said:
Also, I mentioned all the annihilations caused radiation. ….
…. So maybe not the antimatter but the initial gamma radiation contains all the 'missing' matter (E=mc^2, therefor the energy contained in that radiation is easily calculated back to matter).

Again for that mass of antimatter in your uniform concept to be annihilated would mean the excess mass of matter that we ourselves are made of; would have been converted to energy. Sooo…insert E=MC^2 for credence and hope nobody wants empirical evidence?

It is only by the grace of the effects of gravitation on matter and antigravity on anti-matter that not all initial matter and
antimatter is annihilated. See my conceptual text for reference.

LeTonny":3pppkppq said:
Ofcourse, my theory is just that, but so are all other theories concerning antimatter I'm afraid. So, I invite
you to explain your knowledge of antigravity not existing.
Actually what is written in your original post does not meet the definition of a theory. It is more along the line of gibberish.

I'm the first to acknowledge that my post is far from an elegently explained theory. Fact is: I'm not a trained writer of scientific theories. That hasn't kept you from giving it time and thoughts tho'

N

#### neuvik

##### Guest
LeTonny":2snzuskh said:
I'm the first to acknowledge that my post is far from an elegently explained theory. Fact is: I'm not a trained writer of scientific theories. That hasn't kept you from giving it time and thoughts tho'

What separates the Physics folder, and anything other than Freespace, Unexplained, and Science Fiction; Is that you have to back up your claims with facts and supporting evidence when approached.

Otherwise you’ll face a few days of your post being dissected, and then removed to a more fitting folder…usually Unexplained. This will fit in nicely with the other groundbreaking “theories” that last a few paragraphs with no citations to supporting works, calculations, etc.

L

#### LeTonny

##### Guest
You may be right this post was posted in the wrong section. I intended no harm, I was just looking for an active
forum where I hoped to find people with knowledge on the subject far exceeding mine.
And I'm not claiming my 'theory' is the definitive solution, I was merely hoping to coin my ideas and hear from
people whether or not my assumption of the existance of anti-gravity and it's properties could be probable or
improbable.

Chances are my ideas are incorrect (as I said, I'm no expert to this subject), but on 1st, 2nd and 3rd sight I couldn't
find anything wrong with it. They seem to explain what we see or not see now, they fit in the ideas that already
exist, but they all need the assumptions of anti-gravity to be true.

I thank you for your reactions so far.

N

#### neuvik

##### Guest
LeTonny":2g1bltwi said:
...
Chances are my ideas are incorrect (as I said, I'm no expert to this subject), but on 1st, 2nd and 3rd sight I couldn't
find anything wrong with it. They seem to explain what we see or not see now, they fit in the ideas that already
exist, but they all need the assumptions of anti-gravity to be true.

You didn't find a single thing wrong? Did you try doing some google searches on the arguments presented in Origins and my own posts? Maybe, on antigravity, then antimatter? Or the mass of matter and antimatter in the galaxy?

To explain to you, and give you the tools to see why, and how your idea is wrong would take us about four years. Even then, an actual college might be the safer bet. Still the groundwork for understanding theories and empirical science should have been indoctrinated in to you at high school. If you past that, try attending a JC, there is bound to be some with Cosmology, and Physics. Probably a few intro classes as prerequisites along with the mathematics classes, but you will start the on the right path.

R

#### ramparts

##### Guest
I've only skimmed the last few posts, but one thing in LeTonny's post jumped out at me that I don't think anyone's talked about yet: you talk about the antimatter moving "away" from the Big Bang as if it happened in a single location. This is a really common misconception, thinking about the Big Bang as an expansion in space rather than of space. Every point in the universe was condensed at the time of the Big Bang, and it doesn't make much sense to talk about a center to it from which antimatter particles could move away.

K

#### kelvinzero

##### Guest
We probably havent been able to measure the effect of gravity on anything as small as a positron or anti proton, or what ever the largest piece of antimatter is that we have created.

It seems unlikely that antimatter has antigravity though.. because antimatter is not made of antienergy

What I mean is, when a particle and an antiparticle annihilate, they do not cancel to produce zero energy, they most definitely produce positive energy according to the mass of the two combined.

Relativity claims that mass is equivalent to energy. For example if a particle gains kinetic energy it gains mass. If you could put a gram of antimatter and a gram of matter into some really strong bottle that could contain the energy released, that energy would exhibit the same effective gravity as the two grams did before their annihilation.

For that matter, you dont even need antimatter to annihalate matter to create energy. Any gram of either could be squeezed into a micro blackhole that would rapidly evaporate via hawking radiation into energy. I dont think a matter black hole could be any different from an antimatter one because mass would be equivalent, and charge would be zero (assuming the matter and antimatter initially had no net charge, as is usual)

(edit: ramparts had a good point also... and I also only skim read )

L

#### LeTonny

##### Guest
kelvinzero":2mtd41ss said:
We probably havent been able to measure the effect of gravity on anything as small as a positron or anti proton, or what ever the largest piece of antimatter is that we have created.

It seems unlikely that antimatter has antigravity though.. because antimatter is not made of antienergy

I'm not sure why you think antigravity would involve antienergy. With antigravity I meant to indicate an opposite, or perhaps inverted variant of gravity. So, antimatter could very well exist out of 'normal' or positive energy, but based upon its other properties can only be affected by antigravity. Antimatter must have other properties that differ from those of matter, otherwise antimatter would be identical to matter.

What I mean is, when a particle and an antiparticle annihilate, they do not cancel to produce zero energy, they most definitely produce positive energy according to the mass of the two combined.

Exactly, I explained just that. Annihilation produces gammaradiation. Too bad people just skim read, if they would
actually read the whole thing, a lot of subdiscussions wouldn't be necessary.

Relativity claims that mass is equivalent to energy. For example if a particle gains kinetic energy it gains mass. If you could put a gram of antimatter and a gram of matter into some really strong bottle that could contain the energy released, that energy would exhibit the same effective gravity as the two grams did before their annihilation.

(edit: ramparts had a good point also... and I also only skim read )

I never claim to view the expansion of the universe to be anything else than the expansion of time/space.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean to say particals or radiation to move away from the Big Bang.
I wanted to say that when the universe was expanding, e.g. time/space was unfolding, on the outer edges
the particals could have the chance to develope different expansionvelocities: matter moving fractionally
slower than antimatter, therefor 'lagging' and clustering into what we perceive now as the visible universe.

M

#### MeteorWayne

##### Guest
There is sufficient amounts of antimatter in the universe to veriify it does not have antigravity.

K

#### kyle_baron

##### Guest
I don't think that you're asking the right question, about fixing the matter-antimatter problem. IIRC, antimatter is spewing out of the blackhole at the center of our galaxy as positrons, with gamma ray signitures. Antimatter also pops in and out of existance as antiparticles, along with real particles (from an unknown 5th dimension). The two types of particles destroy each other. This is known as the Casimir Force.

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

The antimatter particle known as e+ is found in this diagram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Feynm ... iation.svg

Also, don't get discouraged about asking questions like this. The EGG HEADS on these Science boards, can get pretty rude at times. I love it, when they tell me to go back to college and take certain courses. In other words, "shoot the messenger".

L

#### LeTonny

##### Guest
kyle_baron":9mirmyr9 said:
I don't think that you're asking the right question, about fixing the matter-antimatter problem. IIRC, antimatter is spewing out of the blackhole at the center of our galaxy as positrons, with gamma ray signitures. Antimatter also pops in and out of existance as antiparticles, along with real particles (from an unknown 5th dimension). The two types of particles destroy each other. This is known as the Casimir Force.

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

The antimatter particle known as e+ is found in this diagram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Feynm ... iation.svg

As has become quite appearant from my initial and subsequent posts, I'm not a physics scholar, so I need some time
to digest the information and statements issued. Hopefully I will understand them and their implications (to my ideas)

Also, don't get discouraged about asking questions like this. The EGG HEADS on these Science boards, can get pretty rude at times. I love it, when they tell me to go back to college and take certain courses. In other words, "shoot the messenger".

Finally someone actually posted a reply that responded to the core questions raised Finally someone mentioned
something and provided material to back things up or at least shed new light on the subject, thank you!

N

#### neuvik

##### Guest
kyle_baron":m86ffbw5 said:
I don't think that you're asking the right question, about fixing the matter-antimatter problem. IIRC, antimatter is spewing out of the blackhole at the center of our galaxy as positrons, with gamma ray signitures. Antimatter also pops in and out of existance as antiparticles, along with real particles (from an unknown 5th dimension). The two types of particles destroy each other. This is known as the Casimir Force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_force

That totally fits in with his original post….it says antimatter!

kyle_baron":m86ffbw5 said:
The antimatter particle known as e+ is found in this diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Feynm ... iation.svg

What do you mean the positron is found there? That’s a diagram of an electron anti-electron annihilation, leaving us with one of possibly 8 tasty colors of gluon to choose from!

kyle_baron":m86ffbw5 said:
Also, don't get discouraged about asking questions like this. The EGG HEADS on these Science boards, can get pretty rude at times. I love it, when they tell me to go back to college and take certain courses. In other words, "shoot the messenger".

Oh you’re not still bitter about the whole “electron force” thing are you. It was funny for the most part, you claiming that the Earths magnetic field weighed the same as Mount Everest. Throwing E=mc^2 around like a physics ninja! I'd say take some schooling, but it might be wasted on you. You would have to close your mind, and we just can't have that!

LeTonny":m86ffbw5 said:
Finally someone actually posted a reply that responded to the core questions raised Finally someone mentioned something and provided material to back things up or at least shed new light on the subject, thank you!

There was a core question!? I was at a loss, best I could figure is that you were trying to solve the baryogenesis problem.

Do you really think somebody shooting links with mathematics that require a good understanding of Special Relativity and Quantum Dynamics are going to help you? You can’t make a proper report, and you make some huge assumptions with some wild ideas. When you wrote the following in your original post,
LeTonny":m86ffbw5 said:
First we have to remember at this point in time after the Big Bang, it is assumed the number of matter and antimatter are equal. Logically, this leads to the conclusion for every partical there is an antipartical and the pair, upon colliding will annihilate both of them.
A quick google search on your own and you can get a credible website with a .edu that will spell out how this is wrong, and the basic fact that we are having this chat is proof we are excess matter.

R

#### ramparts

##### Guest
Sorry Kyle, but in order to understand modern physics in any real depth, some college-level (and graduate-level) courses are pretty much completely necessary. People on this board who have taken some of those classes can do their best to explain it to non-experts, but there is a certain point where explanations without advanced math just don't work.

K

#### kelvinzero

##### Guest
LeTonny":2f56j5v2 said:
kelvinzero":2f56j5v2 said:
We probably havent been able to measure the effect of gravity on anything as small as a positron or anti proton, or what ever the largest piece of antimatter is that we have created.

It seems unlikely that antimatter has antigravity though.. because antimatter is not made of antienergy

I'm not sure why you think antigravity would involve antienergy.

er.. then dont skim read my post! There was really nothing else I was trying to explain in it.

Let me try again:

Relativity demonstrates that mass is just a form of energy, and all forms of energy cause gravity.

For example, if some very strong bottle contained a gram of matter, and this gram of matter were converted to pure energy (I mean photons), the bottle would exert the same gravitational force before and after.

Now repeat that example with a gram of antimatter. We know this antimatter can convert to the exact same amount of energy as that matter, and we know this energy must cause the exact same amount of gravity as the energy in the matter example. (It cannot behave differently, because it is just plain old photons. not antiphotons!)

It would be very strange and unsymmetrical if when matter converts to energy, the gravity remains unchanged, but when antimatter converts to energy, the gravitational force reverses. Also this would also contradict the notion that a given amount of energy will cause the same gravity regardless of its form.

L

#### LeTonny

##### Guest
kelvinzero":qwunj9db said:
Let me try again:

Relativity demonstrates that mass is just a form of energy, and all forms of energy cause gravity.

For example, if some very strong bottle contained a gram of matter, and this gram of matter were converted to pure energy (I mean photons), the bottle would exert the same gravitational force before and after.

Now repeat that example with a gram of antimatter. We know this antimatter can convert to the exact same amount of energy as that matter, and we know this energy must cause the exact same amount of gravity as the energy in the matter example. (It cannot behave differently, because it is just plain old photons. not antiphotons!)

It would be very strange and unsymmetrical if when matter converts to energy, the gravity remains unchanged, but when antimatter converts to energy, the gravitational force reverses. Also this would also contradict the notion that a given amount of energy will cause the same gravity regardless of its form

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain it in such an elegant and understandable manner. Your explanation
indeed makes my assumptions, and they whole idea, improbable.
I just hope ideas like mine (not my ideas per se, but ideas with the same thinking-out-of-the-box) somehow will give
someone with more fundamental knowledge a new insight, which eventually leads to the solving of this problem.
After all, new ideas may sound ridiculous (and plenty of people on this forum are keen to point this out without offering
any new ideas themselves), but aren't there plenty of geniuses in the past who were ridiculed at first, but proven ever
so right afterwards? (Ofcourse, needless to say, I'm not one of those geniuses )

K

#### kg

##### Guest
If I remember correctly there was slightly more matter than antimatter at the beginning of the universe because there is a slight prefrence for right handed muons over left handed muons in nature. Please correct me if this is wrong but this is how I seem to recall it from the book The God Particle by Dr. Lederman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Pa ... uestion%3F

K

#### kyle_baron

##### Guest
ramparts":2dolju5w said:
Sorry Kyle, but in order to understand modern physics in any real depth, some college-level (and graduate-level) courses are pretty much completely necessary. People on this board who have taken some of those classes can do their best to explain it to non-experts, but there is a certain point where explanations without advanced math just don't work.

And I'm sorry ramparts, but if you (or your buddies) can't explain physics in layman's terms, with out envoking advanced math, then you don't understand it completely either. Briane Greene as a case in point. I have both of his books, and he only uses math in his notes at the end of each book, as a proof.

K

#### kelvinzero

##### Guest
I dont think I have ever managed to convince anyone of anything before.. becoming all emotional..

I might still be wrong. After all Im using armchair physics for a question that is right on the edge of two theories that do not quite gell yet.

Here is a link I dug up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitatio ... antimatter

The key parts are "Overwealming consensus" but also "not been conclusively observed", and also "a strong desire to confirm this experimentally".

Actually that is a great link. It describes an argument like mine, but also a cosmological argument similar to yours.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
0
Views
790
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
562
Replies
2
Views
941
Replies
6
Views
878