Thread: matter and antimatter problem

Something occurred to me once about the fact that although the big bang should theoretically have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter, we pretty much only observe matter. I suspect like so many other things in the universe that all matter varies sinusoidally between matter and antimatter with some frequency. We cannot detect it, because instruments are made of matter, which is also oscillating at the same frequency. If we observe anti-matter at all, then some type of an external force is able to push matter out of phase. Perhaps pushing matter out of phase by different amounts would yield different results like being able to "walk through walls" so to speak, and even creating energy by pushing matter 180 degrees out of phase. Anybody else like this idea? Difficult to prove, but developing it could yield paradigm shifts in science and technology.

Originally Posted by dave

Something occurred to me once about the fact that although the big bang should theoretically have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter, we pretty much only observe matter. I suspect like so many other things in the universe that all matter varies sinusoidally between matter and antimatter with some frequency. We cannot detect it, because instruments are made of matter, which is also oscillating at the same frequency. If we observe anti-matter at all, then some type of an external force is able to push matter out of phase. Perhaps pushing matter out of phase by different amounts would yield different results like being able to "walk through walls" so to speak, and even creating energy by pushing matter 180 degrees out of phase. Anybody else like this idea? Difficult to prove, but developing it could yield paradigm shifts in science and technology.

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.

But what besides energy = photons is the result of an anti electron = no quarks being annihilated by an anti proton = 6 quarks?
They won't annihilate each other? Neil

We can make anti-matter, we can obviously make matter... but matter cant become anti-matter in a world full of matter can it? because it would annihilate anything it touches, like the molecules in the air.

The tiny assymitry that causes more matter than antimatter is seen in particle physics, I think. Why that symmetry is violated is the question. As for oscillating, protons annihiliate with antiprotons etc. So what would be required is for a proton antiproton cycle. I think there is no current math for this, it is definitely outside the standard model, and note that the entire universe would need to be in side the matter part of the cycle or we'd be seeing radiation from the collisions. Interesting suggestion though. Could it make a testable local prediction?

Matter and antimatter exist in equal quantities in the Universe.

The apparent asymmetry can be traced to some misconceptions about the nature of matter and antimatter for one, and to the fact that scientists have been looking for antimatter in the wrong place.

Quantum-Geometry Dynamics offers a coherent explanation of the problem that is consistent with all observational and experimental data.

I would suggest reading Part 1 of the Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics and Regarding The Distribution of Matter and Antimatter. Both can be downloaded from here.

Looking forward to answer any questions verbally or mathematically on the group I created here for Quantum-Geometry dynamics.

[QUOTE=DanielLBurnstein;6678]Matter and antimatter exist in equal quantities in the Universe.

...and to the fact that scientists have been looking for antimatter in the wrong place.

So in lay terms where should they look? Theory must agree with observation cause too many theories exist.

Yes. More than should, theory must agree with observation.

Although not in lay terms, the papers I wrote which I mentioned in my previous post are quite accessible. My book, I hope, will make the theory accessible to the general educated public.

I don't think the papers will too difficult for your to understand, Emerson. I had a friend who has a Ph. D in mathematics read it and he seems to understand most of the ideas and implications of the theory. In fact, he understood better than many physicists because he didn't have as much to unlearn as they do.

In lay terms, where is the antimatter???

in the nucleus of atoms.

That's the simplest way I can put it. But then one has to get an understanding of the structure of the nucleus.