TakenItSeriously

It's my understanding that anti-matter travels backwards in time. I think that while this may not make much sense to us in our universe, (such as reducing entropy when our universe increases entropy) it seems to make perfect sense for antimatter that was created from the Big Bang. If we put our time datum of 0 at the instant of the Big Bang and counted time forward as matter and energy "inflated" after the Big Bang, then any antimatter that was created in the same Big Bang would then "inflate" in negative time counting backwards from 0. While we would say that antimatter was moving backwards in time, an antimatter version of us in the anti-universe would simply discard the negative we arbitrarily assigned to them and experience it as moving forward in time. They would still experience entropy increase as the absolute value of time increased. I believe that this is something like what CPT theory suggests though I never saw it in reference to negative time before time. So, my question is why would we see the absence of anti-matter as a mystery since anti-matter created directly from the Big Bang could never have coexisted with matter from the same BigBang at any point in time? Matter and antimatter would exist on opposite timelines.

The worm hole time travel went like this: you start with two ends of a worm hole in the present time. Then Bob takes one end of the worm hole on a trip traveling near the speed of light while John stays with his wormhole that moves forward in local time Bob comes back 1 month later his time, only 13 months has gone by in local time due to his relativistic travel Now either bob can go back 1 year to end up 1 month from when he left getting back in sync with John, or John may jump forward 1 year in time. I think this may be the limitations that were discussed, when traveling back in time had its limitations though going forward in time can be open ended by taking that worm hole on another trip to extend the jump ahead. Also Back to the future and the parallel universe theory are the same concept. The parallel universe theory was based on Quantum Mechanics Many Worlds Theory which allows for changes because nothing is certain. However you end up diverging the timeline you grew up in so you can't go back to the original state from which you started. You just move forward to to the new future which you will determine with each action you take.. Edit to add: the Polaroid gimmick was due to the writers paradox of not having any way to increase the drama in the movie unless they had a way to show how they screwed up the future in the first place. Edit again to add: I always figured Heisenberg Theory was just Gods version of creating save points in case he screwed something up because starting again from the beginning is such a drag. Like when he realized dinasours would never get any more interesting so could go back to where mammals came along and send an asteroid to try again.

These types of arguements are typically ones in which something may hold true in one domain while they may not hold true in all domains. As a mechanical engineer, he is probably referencing the conversation of matter which states that in a closed system, the amount of matter stays the same which is true in the domain in which we live, but fails in more extreme sciences, where particles can spontaneously appear and disappear, though not in any way that would concern the world around us. As far as the math question, it sounds like it's a semantics argument. Math is a human construct but there are mathematical relationships in nature as well as universal mathematical relationships such as pi or prime numbers. As an engineer, he probably knows that electrical, mechanical, and fluid dynamics all are based on the same set of formulas where each component in a system has an analogous counterpart I.e. capacitor, spring, or storage tank.. I believe Fractals are patterns that are said to occur in nature though even that statement can be interpreted in different ways.

Back on topic, since it seems like the Big Crunch is out, i would think that any death of the universe scenario that predicts a finit time to die then it's just a matter of time before time looses meaning. Though I'm not sure if that counts.

Ok but to be fair, I've always stated it as a hypothetical state that I didn't think was possible. And I still wonder at the wisdom or logic to label any theoretical boundary condition as an absolute because regardless of how axiomatic a theoretical max/min is, it's still no basis for them holding up over time.. Thanks, just curious, what replaced classical physics as the next paradine? Edit to add, just realized that was a truly dumb question

Ok, I see where my confusion comes from now. After looking it up I found it defined as a theoretical minimum of zero-point energy, which is a quantum boundary condition which still allows for movement. But another source defined it as where all motion in matter stops, which seems ironic, since it was a story about achieving -absolute temperatures which makes me doubt the source. http://www.iflscience.com/physics/journey-other-side-absolute-zero I did see another article which reported the *same story but called absolute zero a state at what most considered to be a theoretical minimum which the author was at least smart enough to qualify that definition given the story being reported. Though he also said it could also be seen as a temperature over infinity, so... I'd prefer to think of it as breaching theoretical minimum. It was taught to me as meaning 0 motion as well and I can even recall the professor emphasizing the point by stating that not even electrons moved which is why it stuck with me. But that was a long time ago. I always just assumed it was a hypothetical state similar to 100% efficiency I also recall hearing about a theory back then relating absolute zero to time that has stopped, but that came second hand and I never verified it which wasn't so easy to do back then. So just to be clear, do you know if zero motion is just a competing school of thought, or a widespread misconception based on the name? Which does seem poorly chosen TBH *sorry not the same story.

It seemed to me that the 4x gravity over our own spacetime mass and the ~4x energy over that total implied a new particle model that provided multipliers over distance, but not so locally. That seemed to require some extradimensional space framework. This is as opposed to finding independant sources that we can't detect seeming so unlikely for something so much bigger than all known matter. Before dark matter was known, I'd always thought that a particle wave model must be represented by a point on a rolling wheel that would define a wave and a particle just like three points define a plane. However, I could never imagine how a single particle could move in that revolving motion so it required a second particle. At that time I thought it would double our gravity which I thought was a detractor for this model, until dark matter made it a supporter of this model. since we also needed a second perpendicular wave to complete our model, it seemed a little too convenient that doubling the pairs accounted for all the extra gravity needed. I would imagine it required some extradimensional forces to bind this model together, though I had no idea if electromagnetic forces would still work extra-dimensionally. The other thing I liked about this model would be that gravity wells would only be expressed in their own particular dimensional space times but since the particles were bound to each other, then the long distance attractions would be accumulative for 4x the force. I never got as far as trying to adapt it for dark energy and I'm just spitballing ideas but what if for every particle that gets merged into a singularity the other 3/4 dark matter gets converted into energy. could using E=3MCC for all BH masses create enough energy despite black holes making up for such a small percentage of known matter? IDK, I'm only trying to account for the fact that DM needs to act at 4X over galactic distances yet not do nothing extra to force collapsing stars. Same thing with DE, when they only count to accelerate galaxies, while not blowing them apart. I'm pretty decent at creating logical constructs, but I don't really understand the math behind the science so I was wondering if it was a viable construct based on what we know.

I see. That's too bad, because I was thinking that black holes might not be bound by the speed of light for energy distribution. Perhaps the gravitational effects are expressed locally but maybe singularities were all extra dimensionally close so energy could be distributed across the universe through something like a singularity net. Kind of like how chips on a poker table all still exist locally but their value is dynamically fluctuating universally.

Ok, thanks! I was just starting to reach that same kind of a conclusion as a decreasing concentration about some hypothetical universal center of gravity. I'm sure it's all been well thought out before, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I just can't stop myself once I start thinking down a certain path. Edit to add: Here's an idea that might not have been explored. As a poker player in a poker tournament, we experience this thing called ICM, where player action destroys monetary value locally and instantaneously distributes that value to the entire field. This is caused by the effect that chip value is dynamic and relativistic due to money awarded to players when they go broke as opposed to cashing out. So, I understand that black holes go through some kind of slow decay of mass over time. Since energy can't escape, perhaps it's just instantaneously distributed to the rest of the universe somehow as dark energy? This would convert a localized gravity effect to a universal acceleration effect perhaps? To explain the acceleration as opposed to deceleration that gravity alone could account for.

I'm not a physicist though I'm somewhat aware of why inflation is assumed. However, I always assumed that accelerated expansion was constant through time. Are you saying that galaxies beyond some number of light years distance are not accelerating away from us while closer galaxies are? Wouldn't that imply that dark energy would need to be introduced into the universe at some point? Edit to add: Now I'm wondering if this could this be some kind of exponential decay relationship that transitioned past the knee of the curve perhaps it's a net mass to energy conversion over time as heavier elements are created that might account for this? Just speculating... Or maybe mass to energy conversion as mass gets sucked up by black holes? Though, That would seem to imply that galaxies should be losing their integrity as well.

Ok, I'm not saying it's possible and I'm not sure arguing about impossible states makes much sense however, I don't know if those are valid arguements regardless. It seems to me that: if an object could be frozen to abs 0, and that state included properties of being static (no acc) and 0 energy, I still don't think Heisenburg is violated because doing something like bouncing a photon off of it would mean it's no longer in a 0 energy state and not observing it implies that it doesn't exist in space time which still doesn't violate quantum mechanics. Also, for an atomic clock to work in that state it requires an electron to transition in energy states. Constant velocity and 0 velocity are equivalent because from the POV of the object, it's not moving, anything around it is moving.

sure it is, freeze an atomic clock to absolute zero for an hour then unfreeze it, and the clock has lost an hour of time. Zero motion = zero time is experienced

I think absolute zero is considered zero time, but since you can only approach that asymptotically according to thermodynamics, then no.

Not really keen on the language indicating movement at some velocity. No such thing from inside a spaceship with no mass such as a planet or distant sun around to provide any kind of reference. Either your accelerating or not accelerating. To a passerby, then your moving at a fixed velocity but to you, it's the other guy who's moving.