Thread: matter and antimatter problem

Originally Posted by Pyraxus

And trust me, you could not offend me even if you really, really tried.

Spend an hour with me...

Originally Posted by Pyraxus

I never considered my thought processes dangerous in any real way. Against the mainstream at times (at least I'm posting in the right topic area :-)), quite possibly occasionally ludicrous or just plain wrong but never did I think so much of my own humble opinions as dangerous to anyone.

This really begs to be addressed.
Saying that something is dangerous does not mean that it WILL lead to harm. It means that it has the potential to lead to harm.
The danger is in the type of thinking that "allows" for "anything is possible" or the like which inhibits the ability to examine skeptically.

Originally Posted by Pyraxus

Fact is that I consider myself quite the skeptic and constantly question almost everything I contemplate and compare those thoughts to the thoughts and findings of others toward the end of trying to find any sense of virtue or fallacy in them.

Which may well be the kind of Limits I was saying are needed for thought above. Limits are what you put into place to prevent personal bias, fixation or what you recognize as a fault with how our brains are structured.

Originally Posted by Pyraxus

I would never be so arrogant as to claim any sense of authority in my posts for I have none.

I would be.

Originally Posted by Pyraxus

Sure, I could keep my thoughts to myself, but I have overcome so much of my own ignorance in many areas by putting myself out there to some degree with the willingness to be humbled and admit my shortcomings. Wow, dangerous. I'll have to consider this a bit more.

Which is a great thing.
But the part I mentioned as dangerous was a Very specific and isolated aspect- So kick back and relax a bit. I did not mean to imply it as a whole or across the board.

Originally Posted by Pyraxus

Now please clarify for me, are you saying there are no fundamental Truths which act as a foundation for such things as the dynamics of motion and structure of reality? This is what I am referring to when I say fundamental Truth. Did you think I meant something else?

I pointed out when I said it that I had particular trouble with the WORDING.
Short answer: no, I do not think there are "Fundamental Truths."
BUT- what you're describing sounds like Principles. Principles of Motion or of Chemistry- which can be measured. But saying they are fundamental means they are "Absolute."
I honestly think of them as absolutes, but I try Not To Do so. The reason being: We cannot ever PROVE them to be absolute. It's a very minor thing. But by avoiding concepts of "Absolutes," we can influence our brains to be more consistent with the Scientific Method. It allows us to accept the evidence but never take it as "faith," alone.

Originally Posted by Pyraxus

It is sad that many people are afraid of Truth and progress and will kill and destroy to hold on to their own fragile beliefs. And while I still possess some insecurites of my own I can't imagine how those might give me any right to attack others needlessly. The bad must be taken with the good. Without this duality to measure things by, how could one compare what is beneficial or harmful?

I agree completely. I admire your self awareness. I'm not as self aware a lot of the time, although I do have lucid moments... I'm still prone to primitive behavior. And I do, at times, find primitive behavior beneficial.

Originally Posted by Pyraxus

One thing is certain. If I did want to effectively contribute to the world's knowledge base then you are absolutely right. The work must be done. But how far could one go working only on a mechanical basis? Probably not very. So either I would have to re-learn the math or collaborate with someone who has the skills and is willing. But honestly, I don't expect that humble little me is going to change the world or discover the actual theory of everything. Is it possible? I guess, someone has to do it, but I seriously doubt that person would be me.

I doubt it would be you or me. But so what?
Yes, we all can enjoy succeeding at goals-- But I honestly feel that the greatest pleasure is in the struggle to attain them.
It's a safe bet that I will never win a Nobel Prize. And I'm secure in that. But I'd Sure Love To TRY!
And I'd have no regrets at not winning. maybe I won't make a massive difference in the world, like Albert Einstein or be in the Right Moment with the right mentality to do so as Rosa Parks was.
But if I can make an impression on those I care about- If my son can speak of me with pride and respect... If I can feel as though I've accomplished more and overcome a few more struggles at the end of each day- I am Alive. Not existing. I would definetly encourage anyone to roll with the punches, take the bruises, bask in the glory and confront inner insecurities. You never know what the outcome will be, but you will know how you will feel as you put one foot in front of the other and keep on forging ahead.

Originally Posted by Pyraxus

Really, all I enjoy is working the puzzle.

Awww... Jinx...
I'm typing out the reply as I read because I'm watching the clock here.

Originally Posted by Pyraxus

I see this great big puzzle that lots of people try to work on and I think to myself, "I love puzzles, it keeps my mind occupied." And as I go about it I naturally try many ways to fit the pieces together. I try comparing shapes, colors, patterns. Others might have different methods than me, but hey, to each his own.

True, but I still recommend that one finds the most productive method first. Having a unique method is only productive if there's a sound reason to that method. A poor method, even if it's popular, is still a poor method and will reveal shoddy results.

Originally Posted by Pyraxus

Needless to say, I don't expect to change the world. I know who I am and don't feel any need for fame or glory. Sure I like a little attention now and then, but by and large I am more of a loner.

Yeah, me too.

Originally Posted by Pyraxus

As for the event I mentioned, the epiphany. Well I should have added a word. I should have said "...can scarcely explain logically." I guess you would have to say it was like a Near Death Experience. The experience I had defies so many of my attempts to classify or even describe it accurately. And being the skeptical type that I am I admit that it may very well have been some sort of delusion. But real in some sense or not the event opened my mind to a vision of something I hardly contemplated before. I will not go into detail for this is a forum for the discussion of scientific issues, not spiritual ones...if that is the right word to use. I will only say this, what I experienced I could barely understand logically. But it had this annoying sense of certainty to it, even if I do not understand what that certainty is yet. Maybe I never will and as I said, maybe it was all just a delusion. But if it wasn't, then maybe there is some reason behind it, maybe not. If there is then perhaps time will tell. Maybe it has set me on a path or maybe I'm just stumbling along blindly without a clue. I can live with either one.

So thank you again Neverfly for your input. It truly is valued and appreciated.

I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard this. Hell, I've had a few of my own...

I've been medically dead twice.
I've been shot twice, stabbed several times and once hit by a grenade.
I saw Jesus once. And many many times in my life, I've had religious epiphanies.
Now I'm an atheist. Wait... what?
WTF?!
Where oh where did I go wrong...

The most I can say is this: Our brains are particularly complex. They rely heavily on primitive instincts, such as pareidolia which provides us image comparison and recognition: It's better to see a predator that is not there than to not see one that is.
So we see a cloud that looks like a bunny and it's all oohs and ahhs. But when we see the virgin mother on a grilled cheese sandwich- THEN it's Magical. Or profits on eBay to a fool and his money who are soon parting.
Now, there's a jelly bean out there that seems to resemble a newlywed bit of royalty. I probably would have just shrugged and eaten it. Yummers.
Because of these instincts, our survivalist brain tries to Fill in the Gaps left by ignorance. It may be a survival trait- it will keep you alive long enough to pass on your genes... But as an intellectual trait it can be a real hum-dinger.
Just because you cannot explain something does not mean you get to place faith in some unknown explanation simply because no one can 'prove it wrong' or because you want to be 'open to possibility.'
Especially considering how screwy our brains are. ( Number 9 )
The more you try to look for or find that ethereal explanation, the more likely you are to feel justified in thinking you've found it. You'll find ways to do so.
This applies to someone unable to explain a bump in the night and up and jumping to the conclusion that it was a ghost. And if I point out that there is zero evidence of ghosts and a hole lotta evidence that souls and divine consciousness is not real- they challenge me to prove it wasn't a ghost or "How do you explain it, then?!" Jeez, whether I can explain it or not doesn't allow them to believe it was a ghost anymore than a Fairy, chocolate Cheez-Whiz snorting space dragon, grumpy gnome or any OTHER absurdity you can randomly pick to place faith on.

It's just a lot more productive and revealing to go for the basic roots first. Go for what you can put your finger on, even if the explanation isn't as spiritually pleasing. At least it's real and real is something I can use.

In material science there are a number of defects. Two of those are Schottky Schottky defect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Frenkel Frenkel defect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia defects. Lets propose that the universe is composed of equal sized spheres. Further, if we propose an extra sphere, Schottky defect, creates matter and a missing sphere, Frenkel defect, creates antimatter, we have a mechanism for matter and anti matter. If the spheres of space have forward and reverse rotations, on 3 axes, we have a mechanism for creating different particles depending on the rotations and the direction.
When a missing sphere reaches the edge of the universe it disappears. An extrasphere would not disappear. Therefore almost all defects are extraspheres, Schottky defect, or in other words, "Matter."

Originally Posted by tom

But we can create antimatter and it doesnt act like this. From what i understand if antimatter collides with matter both the matter and the antimatter are destroyed resulting in a massive release of energy.

Exactly, and approximately half of that energy is released as neutrinos.