Some thoughts on antimatter

[Catastrophe]

There is an interesting question in the latest (Issue 128) of All About Space, which arrived today.

"Where did the antimatter go?! I have some suggestions.

Antimatter and matter are supposed to have occurred in comparable quantities - how do we think we are able to even suggest this when our existence is supposed to be limited to <5% of the observed universe (small u)? My question.

If what we have left is just the marginal remainder of matter/antimatter explosion, then the BB must have been horrendously bigger than we seem to think. Maybe it was this +/- matter mutual destruction which 'funded' inflation? My question.

Does anyone know anything about +/- matter mutual destruction involving dark matter/energy? (I don't).

Are dark matter and dark energy energy just ad hoc assumptions (polite names for 'fudge factors'?) or are they important enough to be brought into +/- matter mutual destruction - and, if so, how? My question).

Yours, one seeking illumination to lighten my darkness, no matter how . . . . . . . . .

Cat

 

[suneritz]

May be the coin flip determined that our Universe should be made of matter, but it could as easily be other way around, via anti-mater with positive electrons and negative protons? I wonder if we would notice the difference. Thanks

 

[Catastrophe]

suneritz, yes, of course. The point I am making here (and, as you say, it could have gone either way) is that if what we have now is just a tiny remnant of the original matter/antimatter content, then how much of these together could have been present originally?

Maybe, this +/- explosion was what powered the inflation?

That was what really interested me.

Cat

 

[Pogo]

It was many years ago around the ‘70s or ‘80s when I read the theory that matter and antimatter were created during the BB in almost equal amounts and the matter we see is the leftovers. Since the advent of dark matter and dark energy, I have not seen anything that fits them into the first theory. Is there anti-dark-matter and anti-dark-energy?
At any rate, no matter, or should I say, regardless which flavor of matter/antimatter would’ve won its existence, we would’ve called what we’re made of matter, the critters orbiting nuclei electrons, and assigned a negative charge, &c.

 

[Helio]

If what we have left is just the marginal remainder of matter/antimatter explosion, then the BB must have been horrendously bigger than we seem to think. Maybe it was this +/- matter mutual destruction which 'funded' inflation?

If bigger, then cooler also, I think. If cooler, then pair productions especially for heavy particles would be unlikely.

Does anyone know anything about +/- matter mutual destruction involving dark matter/energy? (I don't).

Its safe to say no one knows since neither of these are understood. DM is demonstrable, but DE only is a label for the push that gives accelerated expansion.

Are dark matter and dark energy energy just ad hoc assumptions (polite names for 'fudge factors'?) or are they important enough to be brought into +/- matter mutual destruction - and, if so, how?

Many are convinced a particle explains DM, so this is a cool question.

[

Yours, one seeking illumination to lighten my darkness, no matter how . . . . . . . . .

These dark matters will require significant light.

 

[IG2007]

This is an interesting food for thought, Cat. I have asked myself the same question many times, and I have come up with a hypothesis(?) of mine but as I am unable to do the Math by myself and this is merely a speculation, take it with a grain of salt.

I wonder why only the energy of antimatter is taken as negative, why not the mass? Is mass and energy not the same thing? Even if we take this thing simply mathematically, all the mass and energy of the universe are supposed to be zero if we add all of it (first law of Thermodynamics). Then why only should the protons become negative and electrons become positive? Why not the mass as well, negative mass crosses out positive mass.

So, my theory is, although this has some issues with it (coming to that later), as negative mass produces negative gravity (theory of relativity), after the first few seconds of the Universe where most of the matter collided with the antimatter, the rest of the antimatter became isolated and invisible, as light simply bends around it and it doesn't allow matter to come near it. My theory is that this negative mass antimatter is the root for dark energy.

And here comes the issue with the theory, if there were to be an equal amount of antimatter and matter, our Math wouldn't have ended up with almost 70% of the Universe being Dark Energy. Either much of the dark energy is concentrated in our local area, or the hypothesis is simply wrong. We don't know, but someday, maybe we will

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio,
"If bigger, then cooler also, I think. If cooler, then pair productions especially for heavy particles would be unlikely." Heavy particles this early? But more separated, less likely.
IG
"most of the matter collided with the antimatter, the rest of the antimatter became isolated"

First,
Became cooler. I don't like singularities, but singularity or nexus, I think the "bit before the bang banged" (OK, not exploded, but expanded) I understood that it was supposed to be pretty hot?
Where the antimatter (-) and matter (+) were supposed to have come from, I don't know, but, if they arose at t plus a tiny bit, then I assume they were hot, or pretty soon became hot, due to +/- mixing and explosion. Granted, if we can even compare, energy would have increased motion of particles, temperature would have increased, volume increased and temperature decreased again (pv=nRt). Analogy with gas laws would predict expansion, and, with separation of particles, reaction +/- would decrease, energy output decrease, and expansion slow down. This is if analogy with gas laws holds up. I know all about the "volume" issue.
Second
What IG says would be covered by the above. With expansion, particles would be more separated, and less able to react. With expansion getting faster, particles would separate increasingly more quickly, and therefore less and less able to react. Antimatter could be alive and well, even today, and for ages to come.

All very well if elementary physical chemistry applies - which it probably doesn't.

Cat

 

[suneritz]

There are 2 (if I am correct) points which need to be addressed with expansion (inflation) theory, if anti-mater was the culprit.

a) The expansion wasn't like an uncontrolled supernova explosion. Instead, it was slowed down enough to allow for galaxies to form and stick around, which the scientists say was caused by dark mater veins (i.e. a big unknown at the moment). And,

b) The expansion as seen today seems to be accelerating (red shift), meaning whatever (dark energy?) was causing it, is increasing the revs, with enough energy not only to overpower the gravitational collapse but to expand it exponentially, yet gracefully.

Dark matter/energy can be responsible for both of these things, if I understand it correctly. Meaning, dark matter slows it down and dark energy makes it to expand in accelerated way. Yet neither of them have been observed or understood, whereas anti-mater has been observed.

 

[billslugg]

"I wonder why only the energy of antimatter is taken as negative, why not the mass?" - IG2007

Antimatter is not takes as negative energy or negative mass. It is matter that has the opposite charge from normal matter. The electron, for example, has an antimatter twin with the same mass but a positive charge called the positron. When the two meet, they annihilate and create a 1.022 MeV photon.

 

[IG2007]

Antimatter is not takes as negative energy or negative mass. It is matter that has the opposite charge from normal matter. The electron, for example, has an antimatter twin with the same mass but a positive charge called the positron. When the two meet, they annihilate and create a 1.022 MeV photon.

I know, my friend. But that is exactly what my problem is. A photon still has some mass, not rest mass, but mass-energy.

 

[Catastrophe]

suneritz,

As I pointed out, a +/- explosion would slow down as individual components became further and further apart. This is an elementary concept in the physical chemical analogy.

Whatever one may think of dark matter, is not 'dark energy' accepted as merely a 'fudge factor' to "explain" today's expansion, however graceful?

Cat

 

[billslugg]

"A photon still has some mass, not rest mass, but mass-energy." - IG2007

Yes, a postron/electron pair has a rest mass of 1.022 MeV, when converted into a photon it has a momentum equal to 1.022 MeV. Charge is conserved as is mass/energy. What is the problem?

 

[Catastrophe]

As OP, may I please come back to the question(s):

"Antimatter and matter are supposed to have occurred in comparable quantities - how do we think we are able to even suggest this when our existence is supposed to be limited to <5% of the observed universe (small u)? My question."

"If what we have left is just the marginal remainder of matter/antimatter explosion, then the BB must have been horrendously bigger than we seem to think. Maybe it was this +/- matter mutual destruction which 'funded' inflation? My question."

Part of what I am getting at, is that our <5% available for observation does not give us much scope for scientific enquiry - even if all that dark energy is more than fudge. Even if that <5% is actually 70%, it is still more than enough to keep us busy.

Without wishing to mix threads, there is some good stuff to chew over in Mystical Physics thread:

Mystical physics | Space.com Forums

These should be kept separate, but I will only say that the +/- 'explosion' is dealt with there in the context of regarding it as separable from the actual t = 0 situation.

Cat

 

[IG2007]

"A photon still has some mass, not rest mass, but mass-energy." - IG2007

Yes, a postron/electron pair has a rest mass of 1.022 MeV, when converted into a photon it has a momentum equal to 1.022 MeV. Charge is conserved as is mass/energy. What is the problem?

The problem is, the total mass-energy of the Universe is supposed to be zero, as, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, matter cannot be created nor destroyed, and thus, the total mass-energy of the Universe should be zero. If a photon emerges from every matter antimatter collision, it does not result in a zero mass-energy universe and that fundamentally breaks the First Law of Thermodynamics. So, my question is, why doesn't antimatter have negative mass as well as negative charges?

 

[billslugg]

Of course matter can be created and destroyed, it is destroyed in our nuclear reactors. The disappearing matter turns into energy. Both have exactly the same mass, so mass is conserved.

The mass/energy of the universe is supposedly zero because the positive mass/energy we can see/measure is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of the expansion.

First Law of Thermodynamics is simply that heat flows from hot to cold. It is the Second Law that says mass/energy is conserved.

Antimatter does not need to have negative mass, when it combines with matter, the resultant photon has sufficient mass to account for both ingoing particles.

 

[Catastrophe]

There are lots of different statements.

"The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another."
First Law of Thermodynamics - an overview - ScienceDirect.com

The First Law of Thermodynamics evolved from the experimental demonstration that heat and mechanical work are interchangeable forms of energy.

Cat

 

[billslugg]

Ooops - got my laws mixed up!

 

[Helio]

Became cooler. I don't like singularities, but singularity or nexus, I think the "bit before the bang banged" (OK, not exploded, but expanded) I understood that it was supposed to be pretty hot?

Yes, hard to imagine otherwise.

Where the antimatter (-) and matter (+) were supposed to have come from, I don't know, but, if they arose at t plus a tiny bit, then I assume they were hot, or pretty soon became hot, due to +/- mixing and explosion.

I think there is a quantum law of charge. If energy spits out, say an electron, then it necessarily must simultaneously kick out something of equal charge. A proton would solve the charge part but the proton is far more massive, so it must be something that also balances the mass, so a positron is paired with that electron.

Granted, if we can even compare, energy would have increased motion of particles, temperature would have increased, volume increased and temperature decreased again (pv=nRt).

That seems logical for our soup of particles born from energy, forming an amazing ocean of photons all around.

What IG says would be covered by the above. With expansion, particles would be more separated, and less able to react. With expansion getting faster, particles would separate increasingly more quickly, and therefore less and less able to react. Antimatter could be alive and well, even today, and for ages to come.

I think the idea is that the pair production of matter and antimatter would have been during a time when there was very little volume so decay or annihilation would dominate the more exciting activity. The idea that there are regions of antimatter has been proposed, IIRC, but they would be expected to be encountering normal matter and, thus, be quite bright.

All very well if elementary physical chemistry applies - which it probably doesn't.

That seems to be right. I don't think there is much known about why matter beat out antimatter. It's like flipping a coin a zillion times and getting more heads than tales, but learning that the side with heads has a little more weight than tales giving it super tiny advantage. [Perhaps the tales side is heavier for all I know.] But it seems it is a super tiny difference for matter and antimatter.

 

[Helio]

"If what we have left is just the marginal remainder of matter/antimatter explosion, then the BB must have been horrendously bigger than we seem to think. Maybe it was this +/- matter mutual destruction which 'funded' inflation? My question."

My thought on this is that, say, a positron and an electron pop-out from energy, annihilate back into energy with a net of zero energy production. Something else seems to be behind the push in inflation. I think Guth presented an explanation that gets into energy wells, something perhaps like latent energy that got released but only during those special conditions, just as water will not massively become vapor except when conditions are right.

 

[Helio]

The problem is, the total mass-energy of the Universe is supposed to be zero, as, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, matter cannot be created nor destroyed, and thus, the total mass-energy of the Universe should be zero.

This is an important aspect that may or may not be something physics can handle within the confines of the BBT. I don't recall, off hand, if mainstream sees a zero starting point. This doesn't mean a zero start couldn't be addressed within metaphysics such as at a t=0 or something between it and when BBT physics doesn't fall apart.

So, my question is, why doesn't antimatter have negative mass as well as negative charges?

I think negative mass would necessarily have to demonstrate reverse gravity, which has never been detected with antimatter particles. I'm weak on these topics, admittedly, but I have read such things.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, " just as water will not massively become vapor except when conditions are right."

I don't see any parallel. When you heat water, you get a simple relationship - more heat, more increase in temperature. Then, behold, suddenly you add more heat and the temperature stays the same (well, nearly), You need to add more heat to allow steam to form and depart. (Latent heat of Vaporisation).

In 'my' (I am neutral) suggested model, + and - are formed very close (tiny length delta t) and can only release enormous amounts of energy, giving very high temperatures. Could not these fund inflation?

I have to suggest that pv=NrT has to be modified at higher temperatures and pressures. I will go look it up if you wish, but I don't think it will materially affect the situation. I don't think my 70 year old "Textbook of Pure and Applied Chemistry" by Garside and Phillips had these conditions in mind -

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

This is what I have been addressing in the:

Mystical physics

Eternal return or eternal recurrence is one of the most extravagant concepts in Western philosophy. Pythagoras invented it, or it was revealed to him, according to one's convictions, and then Stoicism developed it. Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher-emperor, was a Stoic, but he never mentions...

forums.space.com

#4

thread.

I don't want it duplicating here please.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, am I making my point?

If you have 1,000,000,000 parts of - and 1,000,000,001 parts of + , most of the 1,000,000,000 of each will cancel out very exothermically? As we suggested, very high temperatures will cause all particles to scatter, so not all + and - will cancel out, and some are probably around today.

But this means that only (about) 1 out of 1,000,000,000 remains - and that is us (Universe).

Cat

 

[IG2007]

Of course matter can be created and destroyed, it is destroyed in our nuclear reactors. The disappearing matter turns into energy.

In the sense of my text, "matter" refers to "mass-energy", or simply, energy. We cannot destroy energy, and energy itself cannot be created.

The mass/energy of the universe is supposedly zero because the positive mass/energy we can see/measure is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of the expansion.

Gravity itself doesn't have an energy, it's merely a result of the curvature of space-time, according to General Relativity, at least. The energy that the objects gather due to the curvature is the gravitational potential energy. And how can the expansion itself have energy? And if it does and if it does have a negative one, then, by your logic itself, the Universe has a negative mass-energy as, if we consider gravitational energy, the Universe is expanding and if it did have a total of zero mass-energy, it would have just stayed the same. And my theory is not the same as the "Zero-energy universe theory" as in this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe . Mine is something different

I think negative mass would necessarily have to demonstrate reverse gravity, which has never been detected with antimatter particles.

My theory of antimatter is different from that of mainstream science. Modern physics defines antimatter as, basically matter, but with the quarks having opposite charges. But, what I think it should be, to balance out the positive mass in matter, antimatter in the early universe should have had negative mass as well. Otherwise, there is an excess in mass-energy. This is just my theory, BTW

 

[IG2007]

Cat, you might be interested in this recent article: https://www.space.com/mirror-universe-explains-dark-matter