Widdekind

Seemingly the simplest statement, is that there are two 'flavors' of matter -- perhaps, thinking of matter as like little 'vortices', in 2D Flatland, matter comes in 'right-handed cyclonic' & 'left-handed anti-cyclonic' varieties, 'looking down' from hyperspace. Whatever be the case, there are two 'varieties' of matter, and they are equivalent. Thus, although 'ideal mathematical equations' say the universe 'should' have started with equal parts M/AM, reality, in fact of practice, was somewhat 'sloppy'. So, there happened to be a bit more of one 'flavor' than the other. And, whichever one it was, we would, obviously, having evolved out of the stuff billions of years later, call that 'normal matter'. In sum, it could have 'gone either way', but, by Anthropic Principle, whichever one 'won out', we'd be bound to dub the same 'normal' matter. By such statements, M/AM doesn't seem so 'mysterious', just typical numerical discrepancies, between math ideal (50-50 split) and actual fact (50.1-49.9%).

Thanks !

During the 'Dark Ages', from roughly 400 Kyr to 400 Myr after the Big Bang, space was strewn with neutral primordial gas: So, if space was strewn with gobs of gas, how can we see through that gas, all the way back to the CMB last scattering surface ??? In the following figure, sight-lines, extending backwards in time, from the present epoch, to the CMB last scattering surface, must first pass through the Dark Ages, and their gobs of gas. How come those clumps of matter don't block LOS ???

Can we confirm, that: [math]\vec{F}_{12} = - \vec{F}_{21}[/math] [math]\frac{d \vec{p}_1}{dt} = - \frac{d \vec{p}_2}{dt}[/math] so that, integrated over time, w.h.t.: [math]\delta \vec{p}_1 = - \delta \vec{p}_2[/math] and so ensuring, that total momentum p1 + p2 stays the same?

Imagine two masses, initially contacting, and suddenly jettisoned apart. As they travel apart, and then fall back together, they sweep out a certain 'area', in the spacetime x,t plane, forming a shape something like an ellipse. Is there a simple relation, between the area of that 'ellipse' swept out, in spacetime, and the initial total system energy? I started working through the equations, from Newton's laws in the reduced mass frame, and, whilst possible, nothing seems simple. Ultimately, at finite total energy (zero), the system starts at escape speed, so sweeping out an infinte spacetime area. So, plotting 'area swept out', vs. starting system energy, one begins at some negative bound-state value, and plots up to zero, watching as the function rises from zero area, before 'blowing up' at zero energy.

I think that the previous pondering was in error. Matter, embedded in spacetime, sits statically, relative to hyper-space, by a 'balance of forces', including (1) radial outward spatial Pressure force; (2) contractile 'hyper-tension' of spacetime; (3) gravity 'hyper-force', which decomposes into (a) radial inward spatial Gravity force; (b) net gravity 'hyper-force', orthogonal to spacetime fabric. Matter does not, mathematically, have a 'mind of its own', to straighten out, but rather merely 'interacts', with the 'downward' gravity hyper-force, imposing stresses & strains into spacetime, which warp the same, into the standard 'gravity well' shape:

If matter & anti-matter both have positive mass, then energy must gravitate. For, imagine one mass of matter, 'sagging down' on the 'rubber sheet' of spacetime, meeting another mass of anti-matter, also 'sagging down'. At the moment the matter meets the anti-matter, they 'combust' into raw energy. If, the moment before they combust, spacetime is 'sagging down', then the moment of their combustion, when all the resulting released raw energy is still packed into a tight bundle, spacetime must still be 'sagging down', unless spacetime can instantaneously 'jump' back to its equilibrium position. If so, energy gravitates, too -- even though mass is some 'stable form' of energy, that can remain perpetually localized, whereas raw energy will try to diffuse & spread outwards. Moreover, most of the mass, in all of the cosmos, is intra-nuclear 'glue'. For, electrons mass merely ~1/2000th that of their nucleon counterparts. And, in those nucleons, the three 'bare naked' quarks, combined, merely mass ~10 MeV, out of the ~940 MeV nucleon mass-energy. Thus, roughly 930/940ths [math]\approx[/math] 99% of all the mass, in all of the matter, inside this spacetime, is the 'glue' that 'dresses' the bare quarks. And glue, representing inter-quark gluon bonds, is made of massless gluons -- which, yet, gravitate strongly. Such suggests, equally strongly, that energy gravitates, not merely matter. Conversely, if anti-matter had anti-mass, so that it bulged in the 'opposite direction' from matter -- 'floating up' instead of 'sagging down' -- then, when the two combined (as per OP), they would annihilate into flat spacetime, which yet contained all the energy released from that explosion. If, then, large amounts of energy can exist, in flat spacetime, then energy must not cause curvature in spacetime -- to wit, energy would not gravitate. The gravitation, or non-gravitation, of energy, determines which picture is correct. And, again, that gluons are massless, yet energetic, and highly gravitationally interactive, seemingly suggests, that raw energy does gravitate.

It's my understanding, that anti-matter is matter that has been 'scooped up, like a pancake off of a griddle, and plopped back down', onto, and into, spacetime. Such an effect, amounting to a '180 degrees hyper-spatial rotation', would 'reverse everything', accounting for CPT effect. 'Looking at the pictures', anti-matter 'should', then, bulge 'in the opposite direction', as normal matter (along with every other physical 'reversal'). Such an argument, though, does amount, to 'GR in pretty pictures'.

I meant this merely as a mathematical exercise, not as any sort of speculation. Could you describe EM, with a GR-like mathematical theory, by 'tweaking some signs here and there', to (1) reverse the amplifying 'hyper-force', which 'pulls down' on the 'rubber sheet' (GR), to a restoring hyper-force, which would 'push up' (EM?); (2) allow for 'bulges in both directions' -- each experiencing restoring, center-seeking hyper-forces -- to account for opposite charges. Again, I was not speculating, about what is, merely asking a mathematical question (albeit completely qualitatively), as a 'fun homework assignment'. As for your question, and setting aside all this 'EM stuff', negative mass, could be incorporated, into regular GR, by supposing that anti-mass, caused curvatures in the fabric of spacetime, in the 'opposite (hyper)direction'. To wit, in the standard rubber sheet analogy, massive bowling balls would sink down deep, but anti-massive anti-balls would 'want to float upwards towards the ceiling'. Thus, mass & anti-mass would want to fly apart, so that, each far away from the other, they could both bulge away from the mid-plane, the one sinking & the other rising, as much as possible, producing an 'opposites-repel' effect. Yet, with all matter, or all anti-matter, everything would happen, as per the standard rubber sheet analogy, producing a 'like-attracts-like-effect'. Please ponder, too, the presumable 'self-straightening' tendency of matter embedded in spacetime.

According to J.A.Wheeler's A Journey into Gravitation & Spacetime, spacetime, inside matter, is 'contractile', seemingly seeking to 'curl up into a ball'. Must that not imply, that something, presumably the matter itself, is 'pushing back', and seeking to 'straighten out', both itself, and spacetime ??

Thanks for the clarification (Swansont), and link (Imatfaal). Would Imatfaal please quote the article? I understand, that anti-hydrogen would be neutrally charged, and, so, would interact, only magnetically, and gravitationally. And, if anti-hydrogen had negative 'anti-mass', it would experience a +g 'anti-gravitational' acceleration, of ~10 m/s/s, upwards. Otherwise, it would fall earth-wards, accelerating at -g. These accelerations, and forces, are equal (if opposite). So, why would the counter-acting magnetic forces, required to offset them, be so vastly different ?

In the standard rubber-sheet analogy, a 'gravity hyper-force' pulls down on matter placed upon the rubber-sheet, which represents the fabric of spacetime. When multiple masses near each other, that 'gravity hyper-force' draws those masses together, since, when combined, the resulting larger mass sags down deeper, deeper down into the 'gravity hyper-force potential' (as it were). This qualitatively describes the 'like attracts like' effects of gravity interactions. Q: Is it legitimate, to try to extend GR, to EM-like interactions (like repels like, opposites attract), by 'reversing' the 'direction' of the 'hyper-force', from the amplifying & exaggerating gravity-like case, to a restoring center-seeking 'hyper-force', for the EM-like case? By reversing the direction of the hyper-force, and turning tensions into compressions in spacetime, 'like repels like' can be qualitatively constructed... correct ?? And, assuming that opposite charges 'bulge' in 'opposite directions', 'opposites attract' can be qualitatively constructed, yes??? Would there be anyway, of combining both the Gravity-like case, with the EM-like case, in a single picture?? Perhaps gravity represents a 'bulge amplifying, center-fleeing' effect, whereas EM represents a restoring, center-seeking effect ?? (Note that the EM-like, 'center-seeking' case would seemingly 'squash' matter, like batter spreading down & out on a griddle. Electrons do, QM, spread out with time, but the Color Force, being significantly stronger than even the EM force, can keep nucleons bound in bundles. How is this inconsistent with these conjecturings??)

I'm not convinced that it does. But, can you confirm, with absolute crushing certainty, that anti-matter (anti-mass) does not repel matter (mass) ? If mass & anti-mass really did repel each other, what human experiments would have been able to notice the fact, swamped by 42 O-o-M, by the EM charge interaction ?

What about Z0 bosons, described as 'heavy light', with masses ~90 GeV, but apparently being their own anti-particle... how could they have a mass, curving spacetime 'one way', whilst being their own anti-particle, requiring them to curve spacetime 'the other way' ? I really want to ask, can any modern human, honestly scientifically certify -- be absolutely 100.00% certain -- that matter & anti-matter actually attract each other ?? First off, does that really even sound correct, "matter & anti-matter... attract" ?? Secondly, one way or the other, the magnitude of the gravity force, between an electron & positron, is 42 powers of ten less, than their over-whelmingly dominant EM attraction. So, what human experiment, has ever measured the behavior of electron-positron pairs, to 42 decimal points ?? If, in the hypothetical absence of charge interactions, matter really repelled anti-matter ('levitation, anti-gravity'), how would any human have ever known that fact? Only by investigating large, electrically neutral blobs of 'anti-mass', would we know for sure... yes??? Am I really missing something, that obvious?? Anti-matter cannot have anti-mass... b/c... ?!

Imagine simulating the evolution, through time, of the Local Group (say). You create, in computer, several spiral galaxies, and a slew of spheroidals, and evolve them for billions of years. You plot their paths through space & time. Now, imagine re-doing that simulation, starting from the same initial conditions, but "jiggering" all the stars' initial positions, by +/- several light-years, in random directions. Then, re-run the simulation, for the same amount of time. Would varying all the positions, of all the billions of stars comprising a galaxy, by a few light-years, in varying directions, ultimately affect the global, bulk motion, of that galaxy, through space ? If, in one simulation, a galaxy gradually 'hooked to the left' over billions of years, would such 'slight' stellar adjustments make their galaxy 'go straight', or 'hook right', instead ?? If you were trying to feed actual telescope observations, into a super-simulation, to forecast the far future of the Local Group, how much could measurement errors actually affect the results ??

If mass, embedded in space-time, were to be found to 'decay', and actually 'disappear' from space-time, thereby reducing spatial mass density, down towards the Critical Value, would that "balloon-inflate" space-time? If such a 'vanishing act' were to occur gradually, over cosmic time, would the "balloon" of space-time "just keep inflating", progressively "pushing back" & "procrastinating" the Big Crunch?? Could such a "matter decay" process be construed as consistent, with the claims that the expansion of spacetime is accelerating??? Would it be feasible, to solve the Friedman equations, for a spatial matter density, that not only decreased as a(t)-3, but also included this "radioactive decay" like effect, "over & above" the expansion-based density drop?? What would happen, if the space mass density were to decrease to criticality -- would spacetime "rip open" ??

Speculations on Deep-Space-ship designs Deep Space is strewn with dust & gas. Space-craft collision, with the same, could be catastrophic, especially at trans-luminal speeds (~c). Even with a forward-mounted deflector shield, damage & drag could accumulate, especially on cosmos-crossing inter-galactic hyper-missions, whereon millions of years of fuel, for constant counter-acceleration, seems insurmountable: Fig. 1 -- deep-space-ship Von Braun en route to star-system Darwin (DC Alien Planet DVD) Perhaps, then, deep-space-ships would be better built in an annular shape, like a 'frisbee football': Spinning such a ship could create artificial gravity. And, by carrying a current, azimuthally running around the ship's central axis, such a ship could create a magnetic deflector field, funneling (charged) particles safely through the central channel: Said current could conceivably be constructed using super-conductors, exploiting the cold cosmic conditions, to perpetrate a perpetual field current, 'for free', after establishment, likely on launch. And, in order to ionize onrushing deep-space gas, forward-focused 'head lights', tuned to the (relativistically red-shifted) ionization frequencies of Hydrogen & Helium. Note that this forward-focused radiation requires a rear-ward directed, compensating thrust, but the latter is allot less than dealing with direct dust & debris impacts, calculated below. Comparison of "forward-focused 'head-lights'" strategy vs. absorbing direct debris impacts upon deflector shield In the rest-frame of the deep-space-ship, traveling at trans-luminal velocity [math]v \approx c[/math], an positive mass-flux [math]\dot{m}[/math] of onrushing deep-space debris would supposedly strike the ship. That mass-flux would impart a backwards momentum-flux (i.e., Force) of [math]F = dp/dt = \gamma(v) \dot{m} v[/math]. To compensate, with futuristic laser-thrusters (E = c p), would require a negative energy-flux (energy expenditure) of [math]\dot{E} = c \dot{p} = \gamma(v) \dot{m} v c \approx \gamma \dot{m} c^2[/math], where [math]\gamma \gg 1[/math]. By comparison, the negative energy-flux, for the futuristic forward-focused 'head-lights', tuned to the ionization frequency of hydrogen, would be [math]\dot{E} = \dot{n} \times E'_{ion} = \dot{m} \, E'_{ion} / m_H[/math], where the hydrogen ionization energy is relativistically red-shifted, for the onrushing atoms. Comparing the costs requires reckoning the former against the latter, [math]\gamma c^2[/math] vs. [math]E'_{ion} / m_H[/math]. So, since [math]\gamma m_H c^2 \gg E'_{ion}[/math], especially at such speeds, the energetic costs, of countering collisions (deflector shield) radically exceed that of ionizing incident atoms ('head-lights'). Detection of dust or debris, much more massive, and with dramatically different ionization characteristics, could potentially pose problems. However, on inter-galactic space hyper-missions, the ultra-pristine, quasi-primordial chemical composition, of the comparatively un-enriched IGM, would be a boon, in that regards. What about the 'deflection force', for slightly shifting the incident gases trajectories, through the center of the ship? Surely such is allot less, than fully and face-on absorbing the same, in a head-on collision??

From simplistic assumptions of circular orbits, dominant central masses, etc., one can derive, from Newton's laws, Kepler's equations, including: [math]\frac{\left( \frac{r}{1 \, AU} \right)^3}{\frac{m}{M_{\odot}}} = \left( \frac{t}{1 \, yr} \right)^2[/math] Now, knowing that [math]1 \, ly \approx 64,000 \, AU[/math], cubing that value on the LHS, moving the result (~2.6e14) to the RHS, and calculating the square root, wht: [math]\frac{\left( \frac{r}{1 \, ly} \right)^3}{\frac{m}{M_{\odot}}} = \left( \frac{t}{16 \, Myr} \right)^2[/math] Thus, if the mass of the Local Group is roughly [math]5 \times 10^{12} M_{\odot}[/math] (PF), and if its 'effective radius' is roughly [math]3 Mly[/math], then a characteristic Local Group orbital period ('super-year') would be [math]\sqrt{(3e6)^3/5e12} \approx 2300 \times 16 Myr \approx 37 Gyr[/math]. Is that physically reasonable -- the Milky Way galaxy has yet to complete even a single orbit about the Local Group ? Likewise, if the Local Super-Cluster is roughly [math]1 \times 10^{15} M_{\odot}[/math], and if its 'effective radius' is roughly [math]100 Mly[/math] (Wiki), then a characteristic Local Super-Cluster orbital period ('hyper-year') would be [math]\sqrt{(100e6)^3/1e15} \approx 3200 \times 16 Myr \approx 500 Gyr[/math]. Is that physically reasonable -- the Local Group has yet to complete even a few percent of an orbit about the Local Super Cluster ??

If [math]a_0 = D_H / \delta \Omega_m^{1/2} \approx 100 \, Gly[/math], and if [math]H_0 = \dot{a_0} / a_0 \approx (14 Gyr)^{-1}[/math], then would that mean, that the current 'radial rate' of expansion, of Cosmic spacetime, through hyperspace, be [math]a_0 \times H_0 = c / \delta \Omega_m^{1/2} \approx 7 c[/math] (for the Closed cosmology considered) ??

Can you prove that, by an appeal, to 'local' vs. 'global', in Cosmic spacetime ? If matter & antimatter 'bulged' in opposite directions, then local matter would be 'anti-matter-like', to remote matter, 'on the other side of space':

Symbiotic cooperation has repeatedly been behind major, and explosive, radiations of Earth Life into new ecological niches. (1) Evolution of Eukaryotic "compound-cells", 2 Gya, through Endo-symbiotic absorption, of Mitochondria & Chloroplasts, created explosive evolutionary radiation of new Lifeforms, adapted to new niches, ultimately leading to yet-more-complex multi-cellular Lifeforms: (2) Symbiotic associations, of Fungi & Cyanobacteria [Lichens] 600 Mya, and Fungi & Plants 400 Mya, allowed photosynthetic organisms to colonize the continents of Earth: (3) The development of more modern symbiotic associations, between plants' roots, and other carbon-fixing fungi, c.100 Mya, enabled land plants to exploit polar & patchy places: (4) Symbiosis in animals has helped them expand across the continents of Earth. Mycetocyte symbionts, 'in insects and a few other arthropods (notably the ticks)', enable their hosts to inhabit niches offering only 'nutritionally poor or unbalanced diets'; Mammals benefit from symbiosis with their gut bacteria; & symbiosis saved scleractinian corals from a deep population bottlenech, after the KT Mass Extinction, 65-50 Mya (Douglas. Symbiotic Habit, p.39,42,49). CONCLUSIONS: (A) Since symbiosis is so successful, and, hence, widespread, upon this particular planet, similar "stable mutualisms", may exist, across the Cosmos, on many Life-inhabited worlds. (B) Humans seeking to exploit space, as a new niche [for Earthlings], could engineer artificial symbioses, such as radiation-resistant "radiodurans tattoo ink", or "Live ink". Perhaps future human space-farers might get specialized full-body tattoos, a little like Crusader-clans' Enhanced Imaging (EI) interface, or the Maori warriors of Earth.

Bacterial (Prokaryote) lateral-transfer (Conjugation) of DNA genes (Plasmids) represents "proto-Sexual reproduction" Plasmids are pieces of DNA, that bacteria incorporate into their own genome: Such seems superficially similar, to (lysogenic) bacteriophage virus DNA, which enters bacterial cells, and is incorporated into the cell's internal functionings. Perhaps Plasmids underlie the Eukaryotic transition to diploid-ism, representing some sort of "proto-sexual reproduction" ?? Archaea associated with extreme environments Bacteria breed rapidly Core qualities of Archaea & Bacteria Thus, the fateful endocytosis, of the first cyanobacteria-cum-chloroplast, by a mitochondria-bearing Eukaryote, clearly occurred before the Earth's atmosphere was completely oxygenated, ~2.1 Gya. Methanogenesis demands absence of Oxygen Pre-Eukaryan Archaea was a (fermenting) Endocytotic Phagocytic "micro-predator", stressed by Oxygenation of Earth's atmosphere >2 Gya

If the critical density is [math]\rho_c \approx 10^{-26} kg \, m^{-3} \approx 4.3 \times 10^{18} M_{\odot} \, Gly^{-3}[/math], and if our closed Cosmos contains around 10 million cubic giga-lightyears of spatial volume, then that amounts to a mass of roughly [math]5 \times 10^{25} M_{\odot}[/math].

To try to clarify, while using the standard 'rubber sheet' analogy, if one person puts a bowling ball on a rubber sheet on Earth's North Pole, and another person puts an 'identical' bowling ball, on an 'identical' rubber sheet, on Earth's South Pole, the curvatures caused would both produce identical 'gravity forces' locally... yet, from a 'global big picture', one curvature would be "up" (hyperspatially "out"), whilst the other would be "down" (hyperspatially "in"). I understand Rucker to say, that equal masses of matter / antimatter, cause equal amounts of curvature in spacetime, only that the one "pushes" spacetime "out", and the other "pulls" spacetime "in", but by the same amounts, to the same degrees, producing the same "shapes" of curvature, etc.

(Mis?)reading Rudy Rucker's 4th Dimension seemingly suggests, that photons possess no net spacetime curvature. If so, then converting mass to energy, would reduce the curvature-causing matter content of the Cosmos. And, if the current Cosmic density parameter is within a few percent of one; and if nuclear fusion tends to convert ~1% of mass to energy, in stars; then, after a few generations of stars, the Cosmos might "open up on its own" (?!?!). Once could quasi-conceivably create a Matter-Antimatter "stamp" ("hyperspatial hydraulic press") system: