Question If matter and antimatter were symmetric, then how do we exist?

[IG2007]

After reading every above statement, I am now more confident and convinved of my theory.

"If matter and antimatter were symmetric, then how do we exist?"

Easy question. The Universe is so 'large' (even call it endless ) and so extensive in 'time' (some call it endless) that each unit or sub-unit or sub-sub unit of matter has not yet nullified each unit or sub-unit or sub-sub unit of anti-matter and with the expansion of the Universe probably never will.

The following words "and with the expansion of the Universe probably never will" can be said to be wrong if there were no dark energy, the energy that expands the universe. Now, if my theory is wrong, the above specially mentioned words will also be wrong. As (Okay, now I understand what you meant by "succintly", Cat), Antimatter has antigravity according to my theory, the antimatter that had not been annihilated during the beginning of the Universe can never be annihilated in the future. (These statements are based on Cat's posts in the twin body theory forum)

Succintly, my theory is that:-

Antimatter: has antigravity; is dark energy ; can never be annihilated in the future; when annihilated, changes to dark matter which has gravity

Matter: has gravity; is normal matter; can never be annihilated in the future; when annihilated changes to electromagnetic radiation/light which does not have gravity.

 

[Catastrophe]

"This question is one of the defining mysteries of physics"

Nice to have just solved it! Antimatter is still with us.
Every chemist knows that there is rate of reaction.

 

[IG2007]

"This question is one of the defining mysteries of physics"

Nice to have just solved it! Antimatter is still with us.
Every chemist knows that there is rate of reaction.

Oh Newton, why did you discover your third Law. Everything I say will have equal and opposite reaction. Oof!

 

[Catastrophe]

Oh Newton, why did you discover your third Law. Everything I say will have equal and opposite reaction. Oof!

"Oh Newton, why did you discover your third Law"
Because he was a very clever man.
But, he did not appreciate at the time, that it could not be improved on.

 

[dfjchem721]

Actually, the notion that antimatter has antigravity is not settled. There is no evidence to support antigravity*. The consensus view among experts is that it will exhibit "normal" gravity, and thereby attract each other. No confirmation of either concept has been settled. I would go with the pros on this one - antimatter has standard gravity simply due to its mass.

Not everything about antimatter is "anti". For one, some have postulated that antimatter has anti-time, which means that it is disappearing constantly as it goes back in time relative to matter. I don't think many people buy into anti-time, just like they are not buying into antigravity.


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter

 

[Catastrophe]

Let me put it succinctly, there has not yet been the opportunity for every unit of matter to encounter a unit of anti-matter. This is especially the case including expansion of the Universe.

"After reading every above statement, I am now more confident and convinved [sic] of my theory.

 

[dfjchem721]

Condensing galaxies like colliding clusters is where they are looking for such annihilation. If it is going to continue, it has to be with the densest amount of matter. The less dense the matter in space, the less likely the two will meet. It is possible that some small amounts will remain forever, assuming there is any left.

And don't forget the massive voids in the universe. They could contain some of the "missing antimatter".

Cat, you should never use a typo to point out a trivial defect. The v button is right next to the c button.

 

[Catastrophe]

Condensing galaxies like colliding clusters is where they are looking for such annihilation. If it is going to continue, it has to be with the densest amount of matter. The less dense the matter in space, the less likely the two will meet. It is possible that some small amounts will remain forever, assuming there is any left.

And don't forget the massive voids in the universe. They could contain some of the "missing antimatter".

Cat, you should never use a typo to point out a trivial defect. The v button is right next to the c button.

And don't forget the c in succinct

 

[Catastrophe]

Condensing galaxies like colliding clusters is where they are looking for such annihilation. If it is going to continue, it has to be with the densest amount of matter. The less dense the matter in space, the less likely the two will meet. It is possible that some small amounts will remain forever, assuming there is any left.

And don't forget the massive voids in the universe. They could contain some of the "missing antimatter".

Cat, you should never use a typo to point out a trivial defect. The v button is right next to the c button.

"Cat, you should never use a typo to point out a trivial defect. The v button is right next to the c button."
If I ever see a typo I have made, I correct it. I cannot guarantee that I correct them all, but I try.
If I tried to correct grammatical mistakes like omitted commas I would never have time to type anything.
It is a matter of standards

 

[IG2007]

"Cat, you should never use a typo to point out a trivial defect. The v button is right next to the c button."
If I ever see a typo I have made, I correct it. I cannot guarantee that I correct them all, but I try.
If I tried to correct grammatical mistakes like omitted commas I would never have time to type anything.
It is a matter of standards

Er, sorry for the typo, Cat.

Er, Cat, the thing is that if my theory is wrong, then there should have been no dark energy and the universe wouldn't be expanding and if it wouldn't be expanding. Then, even if it takes trillions of years, if antimatter and matter both had gravity, then one day they would annihilate each other. Even if there is a single antiquark at one end of the universe and a single quark at the other end. They will collide one day, even if it takes trillions of years.

But, if my theory is right, then nothing of this will happen. The matter and antimatter that had not been annihilated in the beginning can never be annihilated in future, or in the present.

Until and unless the universe shrinks...

 

[dfjchem721]

Even if there is a single antiquark at one end of the universe and a single quark at the other end. They will collide one day, even if it takes trillions of years.

India Genius, the trace gravity generated between those two "last" quarks at such extreme distance will not likely attract each other, so this is not a reasonable concept.

It would seem, if it hasn't happened at some "early" point during expansion, it never well. That last quark and antiquark at extreme separation are subjected to other gravitational fields in their immediate vicinities which would overwhelm any chance they might have for attracting and destroying each other at such ever increasing extreme distances.

 

[Catastrophe]

"Even if there is a single antiquark at one end of the universe and a single quark at the other end. They will collide one day, even if it takes trillions of years."
Trillions is not enough. You know how much I dislike using the word infinite (and its family) but in this case there is no other word.
trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (and keep going) is not enough,

 

[IG2007]

India Genius, the trace gravity generated between those two "last" quarks at such extreme distance will not likely attract each other, so this is not a reasonable concept.

It would seem, if it hasn't happened at some "early" point during expansion, it never well. That last quark and antiquark at extreme separation are subjected to other gravitational fields in their immediate vicinities which would overwhelm any chance they might have for attracting and destroying each other at such ever increasing extreme distances.

There wouldn't be any gravity in their vicinity, why don't you understand it? Like Cat said, if they would, one day, be annihilated. Even, if it takes "trillion trillion trillion trillion..." years.
My theory says that they wouldn't ever.

 

[dfjchem721]

"There wouldn't be any gravity in their vicinity, why don't you understand it?"

I assume you mean "There wouldn't be any other gravity in their vicinity.....;" . (As you wrote it, how could the two +/- quarks attract each other?)

So, what I cannot understand is how you think all the mass of the expanding universe will not impact the infinitesimal gravity that would exist between such tiny objects at such extreme distance. Each of these quarks will have a great deal of matter closer to them then they are to each other, unless you are referring to a universe where ALL things are equi-distance, from a gravitational field strength persepecitve. That seems highly doubtful in the extreme.

In any case, I simply have to believe that interaction between these two quarks at extreme distance would get washed out by the "background gravity" that everything is exposed two. Your quarks would have to be like two lovers trying to find each other and calling out each others names in order to find each other. Not to be ludicrous here. They are inanimate objects subject to the laws of nature, and your interpretation does not fit my interpretation of those laws.

Simply put, its seems the forces you require for +/- quark attraction are too small for your model to work on the universal scale, regardless of the extent of expansion.

 

[IG2007]

"There wouldn't be any gravity in their vicinity, why don't you understand it?"

I assume you mean "There wouldn't be any other gravity in their vicinity.....;" . (As you wrote it, how could the two +/- quarks attract each other?)

So, what I cannot understand is how you think all the mass of the expanding universe will not impact the infinitesimal gravity that would exist between such tiny objects at such extreme distance. Each of these quarks will have a great deal of matter closer to them then they are to each other, unless you are referring to a universe where ALL things are equi-distance, from a gravitational field strength persepecitve. That seems highly doubtful in the extreme.

In any case, I simply have to believe that interaction between these two quarks at extreme distance would get washed out by the "background gravity" that everything is exposed two. Your quarks would have to be like two lovers trying to find each other and calling out each others names in order to find each other. Not to be ludicrous here. They are inanimate objects subject to the laws of nature, and your interpretation does not fit my interpretation of those laws.

Simply put, its seems the forces you require for +/- quark attraction are too small for your model to work on the universal scale, regardless of the extent of expansion.

Er, my answer is a no. Because, there would be only two regions of gravitation in the whole universe. This will mean that one quark will attract another quark. Cat said that the gravity between the two is close to zero. But not zero. There is at least a 1 after hundreds of zeroes after the decimal point. A gravitational region at one point of the Universe will have it's effect in the whole universe and that is why the whole Universe is like a sphere. I hope you will understand it.

Imagine a scenario where there is only one hydrogen atom and one anti-hydrogen atom in the universe and they are located a million light years apart from each other. And, there is nothing else in the universe, only space and time. Now, the gravitational effect of both the atom and the anti-atom will reach each other after a million year, and each will attract each to itself. And even if the effect of gravity is very less, it's still there. And they will meet each other one day.

But, this scenario will not be possible if my theory is right. Because both the gravity and antigravity of the atom and anti-atom respectively will even out and they will stay where they are. Try to understand my point. (By the way, I am no expert physicist, lol. I am just telling what my logic is telling and my knowledge of Physics is telling.

 

[dfjchem721]

I can only say that my Law of BB Theories is at play here.

You make assumptions that seem reasonable to some, but to others, maybe not.

We have reached a difference of opinion, and will never agree.

This then satisfies my Law by simply stating accurately that your theory cannot be destroyed.

That does not make it right or wrong, only that there are one or more who believe in it.

Cheers!

 

[IG2007]

I agree to disagree.

 

[Catastrophe]

I can only say that my Law of BB Theories is at play here.

You make assumptions that seem reasonable to some, but to others, maybe not.

We have reached a difference of opinion, and will never agree.

This then satisfies my Law by simply stating accurately that your theory cannot be destroyed.

That does not make it right or wrong, only that there are one or more who believe in it.

Cheers!

Let's just agree to disagree..

Cat

 

[sunstance]

This is a very debated question. We all know that for every quark there is an antiquark, for every electron there is a positron and so on. There are various theories on this. I have a different opinion on this, I think I can solve it by using General Relativity and it has an easy logic. But still, what are your opinions?

If the matter and antimatter were symmetric, they would have annihilated everything, but they have not. Because, we still exist. So, how come matter and antimatter did not annihilate each other?

When you think of an answer you imply positive towards some thing and negative towards others there is some balance in most minds . on matter of positive and negative.
your mind is space as an example based in positive and negative answers yet it is still bound by other energies holding it in place. each mind is different as space is all different.

 

[Catastrophe]

When you think of an answer you imply positive towards some thing and negative towards others there is some balance in most minds . on matter of positive and negative.
your mind is space as an example based in positive and negative answers yet it is still bound by other energies holding it in place. each mind is different as space is all different.

As you see, I like that answer. Can you please expand on your ideas?
Cat

 

[sunstance]

The concept of expanding space is like the universe can move. as it is mostly hydrogen and helium bound under external forces. if we are as the latest pictures shows over time our universe could move similar to a liquid until it finishes up as a pancake flat and thin. however our universe does not have that happen, Clarg the unstoppable drinks us in 363 billion years form now and no-one can stop him. he is unstoppable.

 

[Catastrophe]

What about matter and anti-matter?

 

[sunstance]

As I have stated matter and anti matter relationships I want you to imagine that your brain is full of positive and negative no more then your choices . are base din positive and negative. held by material in pace . that's space. as original as you. matter and antimatter in a containment called the universe. and there is more then one universe and they are all different.

 

[Catastrophe]

What connects matter and anti-matter with dark matter and dark energy?

 

[IG2007]

Sunstance, don't go philosophical please. Tell Scientific facts and theories please.