Question What do you think could have happened to Antimatter?

[IG2007]

I have a vague memory of a similar thread, but if I remember correctly, the thread was closed for further replies. This is not a continuation of that thread, but a new one, to restart it over again, the age-old question of modern astrophysics: what happened to antimatter? Why is there more matter than antimatter today if the Universe started with an equal number of matter and antimatter particles?

Post your hypotheses and suggestions

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Rather than repeat the previous thread, how about reviving a thought by Dirac. At one time he postulated that antimatter is a "hole" in an unseen sea of normal matter with negative energy.

With the current idea that there is "dark matter" everywhere, undetectable by us at this point, what if antimatter is basically a hole created in the "dark matter" that gets created by energy being absorbed by the dark matter, making a "new" visible piece of normal matter and its visible "antimatter" counterpart being the "hole"? Then, annihilation is just the normal matter releasing its energy and falling into that hole.

If so, then no need to explain why there was not the same amount of antimatter and normal matter created by the Big Bang, which would then have totally annihilated both into nothing but energy, with none of either left over. That clearly did not happen. With this negative energy mass as the "dark matter" we would just have about 5 times as much matter with negative energy as we have with positive energy, to get the total gravitational mass to fit observations.

Not the most popular concept, but if you believe in "dark matter", then there is something all around us.

There is more than one way to represent "negative energy" with mathematics. One way is "negative mass". I don't know what to say about how gravity would work with "negative mass". Intuitively, it seems like it would be repulsive instead of attractive, which would not work as "dark matter". (Might has some interesting conceptual implications for dark energy, though.)

Another way is to have positive mass but "imaginary velocity", where the square root of negative 1 is represented by "i", so that the square of the velocity is negative. It sounds strange, but there are already successful mathematical treatments of real phenomena that use "i" in "complex numbers" that have a "real part" and an "imaginary part", so written x + yi.

This link explains the math: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-imaginary-numbers-at-the-edge-of-reality-20181025/ .

And this link explains real physical phenomena that are described in engineering calculations with complex numbers: https://issuu.com/harrowhongkong/docs/final_scientific_harrovian_issue_vi-i/s/11488755

 

[Catastrophe]

Unc,

Rather than repeat the previous thread, how about reviving a thought by Dirac. At one time he postulated that antimatter is a "hole" in an unseen sea of normal matter with negative energy.

OK, but let's keep to this rather than repeating the same opinions?

Is this a postulate, or an idea or suggestion, or pure imagination? IOW, is he trying to give it more force than merely an idea for discussion?

BTW, is there any agreement about "negative energy"? Is there any accepted meaning, or is it just something imaginary? How would you recognize a hole in an unseen sea of normal matter? Come to that, what is an unseen sea of normal matter?

Dirac (1902-1984) (assuming that it it the same Dirac) does not seem to provide us with a very firm basis for discussion - at least not in my humble opinion.

Yes, I have looked at the links. Seeing

It is commonly taught to students, that one cannot take the square root of negative numbers. But what if we could?

did not inspire me to think that the subject had any deep seated basis in reality. Are we dealing with physics, or just unsubstantiated maths?

Cat

 

[Tomh4141]

Rather than repeat the previous thread, how about reviving a thought by Dirac. At one time he postulated that antimatter is a "hole" in an unseen sea of normal matter with negative energy.

With the current idea that there is "dark matter" everywhere, undetectable by us at this point, what if antimatter is basically a hole created in the "dark matter" that gets created by energy being absorbed by the dark matter, making a "new" visible piece of normal matter and its visible "antimatter" counterpart being the "hole"? Then, annihilation is just the normal matter releasing its energy and falling into that hole.

If so, then no need to explain why there was not the same amount of antimatter and normal matter created by the Big Bang, which would then have totally annihilated both into nothing but energy, with none of either left over. That clearly did not happen. With this negative energy mass as the "dark matter" we would just have about 5 times as much matter with negative energy as we have with positive energy, to get the total gravitational mass to fit observations.

Not the most popular concept, but if you believe in "dark matter", then there is something all around us.

There is more than one way to represent "negative energy" with mathematics. One way is "negative mass". I don't know what to say about how gravity would work with "negative mass". Intuitively, it seems like it would be repulsive instead of attractive, which would not work as "dark matter". (Might has some interesting conceptual implications for dark energy, though.)

Another way is to have positive mass but "imaginary velocity", where the square root of negative 1 is represented by "i", so that the square of the velocity is negative. It sounds strange, but there are already successful mathematical treatments of real phenomena that use "i" in "complex numbers" that have a "real part" and an "imaginary part", so written x + yi.

This link explains the math: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-imaginary-numbers-at-the-edge-of-reality-20181025/ .

And this link explains real physical phenomena that are described in engineering calculations with complex numbers: https://issuu.com/harrowhongkong/docs/final_scientific_harrovian_issue_vi-i/s/11488755

You have gone from anti matter to dark matter. Why? Aren't the two totally different.

 

[Catastrophe]

With the current idea that there is "dark matter" everywhere, undetectable by us at this point, what if antimatter is basically a hole created in the "dark matter" that gets created by energy being absorbed by the dark matter, making a "new" visible piece of normal matter and its visible "antimatter" counterpart being the "hole"? Then, annihilation is just the normal matter releasing its energy and falling into that hole.

The first is rather a long sentence for a "what if" - at least, that is my opinion. Similarly, I think that it is rather a long sentence to be followed by a quick snap conclusion such as

Then, annihilation is just the normal matter releasing its energy and falling into that hole.

May I just dissect this a little?

With the current idea that there is "dark matter" everywhere,
undetectable by us at this point,
what if antimatter is basically a hole created in the "dark matter"
that gets created by energy being absorbed by the dark matter,
making a "new" visible piece of normal matter
and its visible "antimatter" counterpart being the "hole"?

It seems to me that there are something like six consecutive suppositions here, of an imaginary, unsubstantiated nature, leading to a, perhaps, unjustified conclusion?

Unc, you have clearly given a lot of thought to this, for which I commend you, but perhaps you are jumping along a little too quickly for some of us. Could you, perhaps, take it in slower steps?

For one thing

“Ramanujan once proved that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4…all the way up to infinity is equal to -1/12”

Is this a joke?
OK, I found it:

{\displaystyle 1+2+3+4+\cdots =-{\frac {1}{12}},}
where the left-hand side has to be interpreted as being the value obtained by using one of the aforementioned summation methods and not as the sum of an infinite series in its usual meaning. My emphasis.



Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

First, I should say that the concept that I posted comes from reading a textbook in 1968 (I think it was Glasstone & Edlund), which did not go into that theory in any depth.

Regarding "holes" in a postulated unseen sea of particles, the logic is similar to the mobile "holes" in semiconductors that flow in the opposite direction from electrons in all sorts of consumer products that we use today, including transistors, solar panels, etc. But, that does not mean that it works the same way with a postulated unseen sea of negative energy particles. The math may work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is real. So, this is just a concept to think about, much like "inflation" is used to "solve" the "problem" for a theory that needs to expand a very huge amount of mass from a very tiny volume of space without violating the General Relativity relationships. This idea of "sea of negative energy particles" might be a "solution" to the problem of why there is more "normal" matter than "antimatter" in our universe, today.

Your question about "How would you recognize a hole in an unseen sea of normal matter?" is the correct question. I don't know the answer for sure, but the postulate to be tested is that it would look to us like an antimatter particle of some sort.

You also asked "Come to that, what is an unseen sea of normal matter?" That is why I brought up "dark matter", which is also postulated to be something that has mass and is all around us, but we can only (so far) detect its presence by its gravitational effects. If that "dark matter" was normal matter, with positive mass, in a negative energy state, then it seems that it would have the observed effects of bending light paths and affecting orbit velocities. The remaining question is how would we detect something with "negative energy" that can only have energy below zero if it has "imaginary" velocity. Again, that is something where the math will probably work, but it may not be real.

I don't see any reason to accept this theory as either "true" or "impossible". And I think that is also the case for some of the assumptions that are necessary to make the BBT work, too. So, my opinion is that this and our other discussion about how "inflation" works differ only by the amount of "group think" involved in the 2 unproven concepts. Only by exploring the concepts objectively with logic and experimentation will we make real progress in finding physical truths.

Regarding the math question on the "sum" of all positive integers, did I not read far enough in my link on imaginary numbers to see that? All I was trying to do with my link was show the early part about the mathematics of complex numbers involving the square root of negative 1. I did notice that it went on into other things, but did not read them. And, they really aren't needed for this thread.

 

[Catastrophe]

And I think that is also the case for some of the assumptions that are necessary to make the BBT work, too

Aren't these called fudge factors?

Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

"Fudge factor" is one name for them.

Which brings back an old memory. When I was an undergrad in college, I was helping a grad student work on a project that would have determined the ratio of two competing, additive effects of ionizing radiation on matter. The grad student's last name was actually "Fudge", and the professor sponsoring the work was very eager to name the resulting fraction "Fudge's Factor". But, alas, the experiment turned out to not have the level of sensitivity needed to determine a useable factor. So, even today, the only real "fudge factor" I know of is the effect it has on my waist measurement - not sure about its magnitude, but I am sure it is a positive number.

 

[Catastrophe]

So, even today, the only real "fudge factor" I know of is the effect it has on my waist measurement - not sure about its magnitude, but I am sure it is a positive number.

Most people interpret it differently, but thank you for that personal recollection.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

I
I
Unc, was it this?


The Elements of Nuclear Reactor Theory - Google Books
https://books.google.com › books › about › The_Element...

Samuel Glasstone, Milton C. Edlund. Van Nostrand, 1952 - Nuclear physics - 416 pages. 0 Reviews. Reviews aren't verified, but Google checks for and removes ...

I seem to remember Glasstone as having written a textbook on Phys Chem.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Anyway, to get back on topic, I would really like to hear about this please:

With the current idea that there is "dark matter" everywhere,
undetectable by us at this point,
what if antimatter is basically a hole created in the "dark matter"
that gets created by energy being absorbed by the dark matter,
making a "new" visible piece of normal matter
and its visible "antimatter" counterpart being the "hole"?

It seems to me that there are something like six consecutive suppositions here, of an imaginary, unsubstantiated nature, leading to a, perhaps, unjustified conclusion?

Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

That is the Glasstone and the Edlund. But, they may have written more than one book, together, because I don't remember that text book having 416 pages. Glasstone was a technical writer hired by the U.S. Government to write textbooks in STEM subjects that the Government figured it was in the national interest to get a lot of citizens educated. Glasstone wrote good books. Mine are in a box, somewhere. I may find them again, some day. But not today.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Cat, I agree that there are a lot of unsubstantiated things in the concept I am suggesting we consider. So, I agree that the conclusion may not be correct. Even the idea that we are immersed in "dark matter" could be considered "unsubstantiated" although most cosmologists seem to accept that. As for what it is, there are plenty of people speculating on plenty of things that they suggest are possible, so this is just one of those. Frankly, it doesn't even seem as wild an idea as "inflation". And, both could be wrong. The idea that antimatter is something different than fundamental particles that are "symmetrical" with normal matter particles is not new, but it is not what the quantum theorists believe. I am just suggesting that thinking broadly, but logically, is part of the scientific method. Since the theorists have no real explanation, and are groping at ideas of "symmetry breaking" in the very early moments of the universe, while everything was "fields" and energy and various subatomic particles, it seems to me that all we have is "suppositions here, of an imaginary, unsubstantiated nature, leading to a, perhaps, unjustified conclusion," for much of the BBT, too.

Maybe somebody will discover something that will actually substantiate something more in the lifetime I have remaining. But I am not betting on it, just hoping for it.

 

[Catastrophe]

Unc,

As for what it is, there are plenty of people speculating on plenty of things that they suggest are possible, so this is just one of those.

However, I do agree with what you say about inflation.


Cat