Is the world of anti-matter a possibility or just a fictional concept?

[ronald_dai]

The world of anti-matter sounds like something only for fiction stories because scientific professionals seem to have not found enough reason to believe it yet. I in fact is not a professional in physics (I am a philosopher) but I like to read physics. I see the world of anti-matter to be quite possibly real, not by fictitious imagination, but by reason.

Some scientific professionals have been telling us that there were huge amount of anti-matter during the early period of this universe, much more than the total amount of matter we are having today in the observable universe. And then, according to the scientific professionals, most anti-matter collided with matter then turn back to energy
together, and the rest of a litter amount of anti-matter just disappeared, and left the matter to form the universe today.

For the mysterious reason of the disapearance of the rest of anti-matter, scientific professionals have made some assumption that they just decayed, which seem have not been universally accepted among scientific professionals.

However, in the mean time, scientific professionals have also been telling us that the space is expanding, and the rapid expansion have created some physically isolated regions, which could not communicate with each other AT ALL because their recession speed is greater than speed of light. Well, this IN FACT provides a much cleaner and better explanation for the disappearance of the rest of anti-matter:

at the very beginning, there were matter and anti-matter, but their distribution in space-time was not completely absolutely homogeneous, at the different remote sides of the "cloud", some was occupied by excess of matter and some other was occupied by excess of anti-matter. When most matter and anti-matter were colliding with each other and turned back to energy, those remote orphan matter and anti-matter were left out because their counter-parties were in the region with recession speed relative
to them greater than light speed. And then these matter and anti-matter cooled down to form their own universes, which would not communicate with each other due to the greater than light speed recession speed.

If what I laid out above is the truth, then a world of anti-matter would exist somewhere and would not communicate with our universe in non-quantum manner. Maybe we don't need to worry about their coming back. But would that possible for us to meet with them in some quantum way and then together turn back to energy?

 

[darkmatter10]

I think sooner rather than later we will learn the harness the unlimited potential of energy released when matter and anti-M meet...and use it for all types of energy needs. I just wonder if we are mature enough as sentient beings...not to kill ourselves in the process?

 

[ZapperZ]

The world of anti-matter sounds like something only for fiction stories because scientific professionals seem to have not found enough reason to believe it yet. I in fact is not a professional in physics (I am a philosopher) but I like to read physics. I see the world of anti-matter to be quite possibly real, not by fictitious imagination, but by reason.

Some scientific professionals have been telling us that there were huge amount of anti-matter during the early period of this universe, much more than the total amount of matter we are having today in the observable universe. And then, according to the scientific professionals, most anti-matter collided with matter then turn back to energy
together, and the rest of a litter amount of anti-matter just disappeared, and left the matter to form the universe today.

For the mysterious reason of the disapearance of the rest of anti-matter, scientific professionals have made some assumption that they just decayed, which seem have not been universally accepted among scientific professionals.

However, in the mean time, scientific professionals have also been telling us that the space is expanding, and the rapid expansion have created some physically isolated regions, which could not communicate with each other AT ALL because their recession speed is greater than speed of light. Well, this IN FACT provides a much cleaner and better explanation for the disappearance of the rest of anti-matter:

at the very beginning, there were matter and anti-matter, but their distribution in space-time was not completely absolutely homogeneous, at the different remote sides of the "cloud", some was occupied by excess of matter and some other was occupied by excess of anti-matter. When most matter and anti-matter were colliding with each other and turned back to energy, those remote orphan matter and anti-matter were left out because their counter-parties were in the region with recession speed relative
to them greater than light speed. And then these matter and anti-matter cooled down to form their own universes, which would not communicate with each other due to the greater than light speed recession speed.

If what I laid out above is the truth, then a world of anti-matter would exist somewhere and would not communicate with our universe in non-quantum manner. Maybe we don't need to worry about their coming back. But would that possible for us to meet with them in some quantum way and then together turn back to energy?

Your post is rife with misinformation and severe misunderstanding. For example, can you cite which "scientific professional" actually claim that these antimatter "decays" away and that is the cause of the matter-antimatter imbalance?

The FACT right now is that we still do not have a clear idea on what causes the matter-antimatter imbalance. This is still an active research area, meaning that we're still trying to find out. There are possible and plausible explanation for this, such as the CP-violation that has been seen in kaon decays.

Please do not make speculative post based on handwaving theory. This is clearly not allowed, per the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380" that you had agreed to. If you do not understand something, ask. But try to resist from using your lack of understanding as the foundation to speculate on other things.

Zz.

 

[ronald_dai]

Your post is rife with misinformation and severe misunderstanding. For example, can you cite which "scientific professional" actually claim that these antimatter "decays" away and that is the cause of the matter-antimatter imbalance?

The FACT right now is that we still do not have a clear idea on what causes the matter-antimatter imbalance. This is still an active research area, meaning that we're still trying to find out. There are possible and plausible explanation for this, such as the CP-violation that has been seen in kaon decays.

Please do not make speculative post based on handwaving theory. This is clearly not allowed, per the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380" that you had agreed to. If you do not understand something, ask. But try to resist from using your lack of understanding as the foundation to speculate on other things.

Zz.

Zz :

Obviously you did not read my post carefully before you lost your temper and got excited...you admited that "The FACT right now is that we still do not have a clear idea on what causes the matter-antimatter imbalance. "...but you did not read carefully to find out that the whole point of this article is to provide a new explanation to the cause...not to repeat the decay (you could easily find article on this online) or CP-Violation explanation...please calm down and read carefully before you make any comment which I believe is what you agreed when join this site...

Ron

 

[Naty1]

Now, now girls, no squabbling, puh-lease!

Zapper tends to purism in physics and does appear a tad parochial at times...but having said that, he's correct in saying your post seems to be pure speculation. On the other hand, almost all "consensus science" over history has been incorrect, sometimes for even a thousand years, so we should be able to take a broader view and feel less constrained by "experts"...

The incredible homogeneity at the orign of the universe would seem to make it unlikely that there were significant regions of matter here and anti matter there...at least unlikely until someone develops a theory that could explain both phenomena...thought I'd check that thought.... 30 seconds of online research turned up this:

If antimatter-dominated regions of space existed, the gamma rays produced in annihilation reactions along the boundary between matter and antimatter regions would be detectable. The amount of matter presently observable in the universe only requires an imbalance in the early universe on the order of one extra matter particle per billion matter-antimatter particle pairs.[6]

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

So you can philosophize all you like, and the quote might even be proven incorrect in the future, but a little inquiry can help focus your curiosity.

 

[ronald_dai]

Now, now girls, no squabbling, puh-lease!

Zapper tends to purism in physics and does appear a tad parochial at times...but having said that, he's correct in saying your post seems to be pure speculation. On the other hand, almost all "consensus science" over history has been incorrect, sometimes for even a thousand years, so we should be able to take a broader view and feel less constrained by "experts"...

The incredible homogeneity at the orign of the universe would seem to make it unlikely that there were significant regions of matter here and anti matter there...at least unlikely until someone develops a theory that could explain both phenomena...thought I'd check that thought.... 30 seconds of online research turned up this:


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



So you can philosophize all you like, and the quote might even be proven incorrect in the future, but a little inquiry can help focus your curiosity.

Naty1:

Thanks for the comment...but, of course I read what you spent 30 seconds before I wrote this post because VERY honestly to you wikipedia is my main source of information...however, I don't see any conflict between what I am trying to propose here and what wikipedia is telling there:

1) If you spend another 30 seconds you might find from wiki or somewhere else that the mass we have in the universe today is not "significant" compared to what had existed before really "significant" matter and antimatter collided with each other...

2) If what left out matter universe and antimatter universes was truly located remotely enough so that their recession speed were greater than speed of light as I "philosophized" here, then we would not see any blazing resulting from the collision of matter and antimatter in their "neighboring" region except for the cosmic background radiation left by the original matter and antimatter collisions, which scientific professionals have detected...

 

[ronald_dai]

Naty1:

Thanks again for you already mentioned in the quotation that the matter universe we are having today was not "siginificant" at early time:

The amount of matter presently observable in the universe only requires an imbalance in the early universe on the order of one extra matter particle per billion matter-antimatter particle pairs

...

thanks for the contribution

Ron

 

[ronald_dai]

I think sooner rather than later we will learn the harness the unlimited potential of energy released when matter and anti-M meet...and use it for all types of energy needs. I just wonder if we are mature enough as sentient beings...not to kill ourselves in the process?

darkmatter:

I believe what you said...and I am not sure what you exactly mean by "mature enough as sentient beings", but I do think it would be possible for someone to exploit the very possible chance to turn it into weaponry usage for killing...if this is exactly you mean, I fully agree that we have reason to worry...but I also believe in GOD...

thanks!
Ron

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz :

Obviously you did not read my post carefully before you lost your temper and got excited...you admited that "The FACT right now is that we still do not have a clear idea on what causes the matter-antimatter imbalance. "...but you did not read carefully to find out that the whole point of this article is to provide a new explanation to the cause...not to repeat the decay (you could easily find article on this online) or CP-Violation explanation...please calm down and read carefully before you make any comment which I believe is what you agreed when join this site...

Ron

If you are offering "a new explanation", then either you point to us where such an explanation has been published, or it is YOU who did not read the PF Rules that you had agreed to regarding speculative, personal theory.

Zz.

 

[ronald_dai]

If you are offering "a new explanation", then either you point to us where such an explanation has been published, or it is YOU who did not read the PF Rules that you had agreed to regarding speculative, personal theory.

Zz.

Zz:

I guess that you are confusing a lot people here...as a PF MENTOR, I believe you should know the fact that a lot of opinion people are expressing here are NOT published but their own because I don't think this is a place solely for someone to come here to teach others what they have learned somewhere else like what you obviously love to do (thanks for that)...

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz:

I guess that you are confusing a lot people here...as a PF MENTOR, I believe you should know the fact that a lot of opinion people are expressing here are NOT published but their own because I don't think this is a place solely for someone to come here to teach others what they have learned somewhere else like what you obviously love to do (thanks for that)...

Then you need to tell me which part of the PF Rules that you read that you did not understand? We have a clear policy on such a thing.

Overly Speculative Posts:
One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Personal theories/Independent Research may be submitted to our Independent Research Forum, provided they meet our Independent Research Guidelines; Personal theories posted elsewhere will be deleted. Poorly formulated personal theories, unfounded challenges of mainstream science, and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.

It is one thing to want to ask something that one doesn't understand. It is another to propose something new, especially when it is based on faulty understanding. PF became this popular because it maintains a high signal-to-noise ratio. If you want to propose something new, please use the IR forum, as clearly stated in the rules.

This thread is done.

Zz.