Matter, Antimatter and Time's Arrow

[John Brindley]

The following theory was published by myself on the 1st August 2013:

"The Question

When the universe came into being at the big bang event, matter was split from its counterpart antimatter. In energy terms, antimatter is the opposite to matter. This means that, should the two meet, they counteract and cancel each other out. The sum energy of the universe is, as it has always been, zero.

But as scientists use more and more advanced and sophisticated instruments and probes to explore and measure the universe, it has become clear that there is practically no antimatter.

What has happened to it all? There should be as much antimatter as there is matter; not roughly as much, but exactly as much!

So, where has all the antimatter gone?

 

The Solution

So, where is all the antimatter? Why didn't the matter and antimatter annihilate one another during the big bang?

Here's the answer: matter is curved space; and time and space are the same thing. Without matter, there is no space or time. Matter creates time. Antimatter, therefore, creates anti-time – time that runs in the opposite direction, that is. That is not my idea – it has been stated many times, by many theorists. For example, the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation (Richard P. Feynman and Ernst Stueckelberg) states that antimatter is identical to matter but moves backwards in time.

What it means though, is that as soon as matter and antimatter were created in the big bang beginning of our universe, they existed at different times. They both existed in each other's past, matter moving away into its future, antimatter moving into its future. Matter and antimatter could not annihilate one another, as, at the very first moment of time, they existed at different times. They could never contact one another.

This means to say that the universe is older than itself. Every second that goes by here, so our past expands into the past. We cannot see the antimatter as it is just too far away. We'd need to see before the big bang; and that we shall never be able to do. But this shows the nature of infinity, that it is as dynamic as everything else in the universe. What was before the big bang? The universe was – our antimatter universe, that is. And could there be life in the antimatter universe? Yes. The antimatter universe is essentially exactly like our own – because it is our own universe! The only difference is, that from there, we are antimatter, with time on this side expanding into their past.

There is a symmetry to the universe, simple, beautiful and wondrously balanced, with no alternatives, no branes (membrane universes) or hidden dimensions. They are simply not necessary."

Since then, a small team of scientists, Dr Julian Barbour of College Farm in the UK, Dr Tim Koslowski of the University of New Brunswick in Canada and Dr Flavio Mercati of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, also in Canada, have published a scientific paper which reaches the same conclusion.

This paper was published in Physics, in the Physical Review Letters, 0n 31^st October 2014 (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.181101), “Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time”.

An overview of this paper appeared in the Daily Mail on-line, by Jonathan O'Callaghan, from 10th December 2014:

"Did the Big Bang create a 'mirror universe' where time moves BACKWARDS? New theory could explain our past - and our future

Scientists have proposed a radical new theory of time for the universe
UK physicist Dr Julian Barbour and others say there are two arrows of time
These move in opposite directions and both formed at the Big Bang
This means at the Big Bang there were two universes that formed
Observers in either universe would view the other as moving backwards

The inexorable tick of time moving forward is something that has puzzled scientists for more than a century.

But now a new theory has been proposed that may help answer some questions - at least with regards to the beginning of time and what happened in the 'past'.

They say that at the moment of the Big Bang a 'mirror universe' to our own was created that moves in the opposite direction through time - and intelligent beings in each one would perceive the other to be moving backwards through time."

​http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2868238/Did-Big-Bang-create-mirror-universe-time-moves-BACKWARDS-New-theory-explain-past-future.html

 

Other reviews of the scientific paper by Dr Barbour et al. can be seen as follows:

Article by Gregory Walton, published by The Daily Telegraph on 10th December 2014:
“Did the Big Bang create a parallel universe where time goes backwards?”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11285605/Did-the-Big-Bang-create-a-parallel-universe-where-time-goes-backwards.html

Article by Andrew Griffin, published by The Independent on 11th December 2014:
“ 'Mirror universe' suggests Big Bang created place where time goes backwards.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mirror-universe-theory-suggests-big-bang-created-place-where-time-goes-backwards-9917249.html

Before 1^st August 2013, there was no other published information on this theory. It was published by me first.

 

 

url deleted as per rule 2.7

[swansont]

The energy of a matter/antimatter pair of particles is not zero. When matter and antimatter annihilate, the mass is converted into other forms of energy; e.g. typically, two 511 keV photons result from the annihilation of an electron-positron pair.

[Moontanman]

I have thought about this as well, anti matter and matter, times arrow, and the Big bang. What i have in mind is something like this:

 

 

 

While times arrow goes in two directions at the big bang and each direction has both matter and anti matter in one matter dominates and in the other matter dominates and each is rare in the other time direction. Is this representative of what you are talking about?

 

This would require anti matter to generate anti mass or antigravity which so far tests seem to indicate it does not... Although reverse time coordinates doesn't necessarily require anti gravity but it would make the idea a bit simpler...

[AbstractDreamer]

Would you also not require anti-distance, anti-electromagnetism, anti-singularites etc?

 

How do you reconcile retro-causality with anti-retro-causality?

 

Is this interpretation about Mutuality rather than Causality?

[Mordred]

Alot of these ideas came out long before we were able to create antimatter at the LHC. These models never got very far, I am familiar with them.

 

They were based on the idea that antimatter had properties other than the opposite charge.

 

Two ideas were involved antimatter acts as antigravity and subsequently anti-time.

 

Todays modern particle physics now know that antimatter is identical to matter with just the opposite charge. It is affected by gravity and time in the same way regular matter is.

 

In point of detail antimatter is constantly being generated in our universe by stars etc. Our Earth is regularly bombarded with antimatter and we have measured the annihilations in our upper atmosphere.

 

Originally these proposals were meant to account for baryogenesis and leptogenesis.

Which is the reason for the inequality in matter to antimatter distribution. SO(10) Pati-Salam subgroup may hold the answer with chirality breaking when you include the Higgs metastability.

 

The Ops claim of being the first to publish this claim however is false.

 

I've read articles on this proposal back in the late 80's I even tried to develop my own variation back in the 80's.

 

Here is a published paper on the subject back in 1997.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwil84LP893QAhVC-2MKHcS2BXoQFggmMAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcds.cern.ch%2Frecord%2F329585%2Ffiles%2F9707087.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFTt9RFbjDcmKKfaDa9JRzCNZ7DlA

 

This isn't even the Earliest variation I've read.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Mordred

[Symmetrica]

I'll answer your questions in parts, as I don't have enough time in the day to tend to them all at once.

 

There should be as much antimatter as there is matter; not roughly as much, but exactly as much!

 

 

 

The issue that arises immediately with this discussion is one of symmetry. The early three unified theories of gravity, quantum mechanics, and matter argued for conserved symmetries in regards to the fundamental identity of nature. This formalization of parity conservation was accepted by most in the Physics community and was coined the term "P-Conservation" In short, it was believed that the Universe was mirror image symmetric, that the enantiomer of this current Universe would behave exactly the same.

 

However, in the mid 20th century, it was discovered that we do not exist in such a strictly symmetric world. Examples of this asymmetry arose in a number of experiments. Such as the radioactive decays of certain atoms. In brief, the directionality of gamma-ray emission was not necessarily even in some atoms. Thus, the notion of a strictly symmetric Universe was abolished.

 

Indeed, this slight asymmetry in the world is required to explain the phenomena of the emerging Universe that does not completely annihilate do to perfect symmetry.

 

First, in order for any theory to explain the emergence of a Universe there needs to be CP symmetry violation. This was proposed theoretically shortly after the discovery of the slight antisymmetric nature of the Universe. This violation consists of two symmetry violations in quantum mechanics. The first, charge conjugation ( C ) operation of antiparticle transformation. The second, parity formation (P), the formation of the mirror opposite of a physical system. Indeed, once you have C violation, your system will naturally tend towards P violation. The details behind CP violation are best understand by way of Cabibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix theory, which I won't expand upon to maintain brevity.

 

Second, there's a disequilibrium in the thermal state of the earliest chronology of the Universe. In short, the immense heat and density at the stage of the early Universe allows for an asymmetric Sphaleron transition. This results in asymmetric brayogensis, and thus a net result of either antibayrons of bayrons.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Symmetrica

[AbstractDreamer]

Does antimatter (that follows normal time and gravity) entirely exclude the possibility of anti-time and anti-gravity?

 

Is it possible that both negative energy solutions to Dirac's equations can co-exist? Just symmetries in different direction.

 

PS I'm not really sure what I'm saying.

[Symmetrica]

^^ The reason for my above edit was to add a quotation around the original author's statements.

Does antimatter (that follows normal time and gravity) entirely exclude the possibility of anti-time and anti-gravity?

 

Is it possible that both negative energy solutions to Dirac's equations can co-exist? Just symmetries in different direction.

 

PS I'm not really sure what I'm saying.

 

 

This involves naive assumptions about the nature of time as well as gravity. I cannot get to this right now, however. I can discuss this with you further at a later time.

[Mordred]

I'll answer your questions in parts, as I don't have enough time in the day to tend to them all at once.

 

 

The issue that arises immediately with this discussion is one of symmetry. The early three unified theories of gravity, quantum mechanics, and matter argued for conserved symmetries in regards to the fundamental identity of nature. This formalization of parity conservation was accepted by most in the Physics community and was coined the term "P-Conservation" In short, it was believed that the Universe was mirror image symmetric, that the enantiomer of this current Universe would behave exactly the same.

 

However, in the mid 20th century, it was discovered that we do not exist in such a strictly symmetric world. Examples of this asymmetry arose in a number of experiments. Such as the radioactive decays of certain atoms. In brief, the directionality of gamma-ray emission was not necessarily even in some atoms. Thus, the notion of a strictly symmetric Universe was abolished.

 

Indeed, this slight asymmetry in the world is required to explain the phenomena of the emerging Universe that does not completely annihilate do to perfect symmetry.

 

First, in order for any theory to explain the emergence of a Universe there needs to be CP symmetry violation. This was proposed theoretically shortly after the discovery of the slight antisymmetric nature of the Universe. This violation consists of two symmetry violations in quantum mechanics. The first, charge conjugation ( C ) operation of antiparticle transformation. The second, parity formation (P), the formation of the mirror opposite of a physical system. Indeed, once you have C violation, your system will naturally tend towards P violation. The details behind CP violation are best understand by way of Cabibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix theory, which I won't expand upon to maintain brevity.

 

Second, there's a disequilibrium in the thermal state of the earliest chronology of the Universe. In short, the immense heat and density at the stage of the early Universe allows for an asymmetric Sphaleron transition. This results in asymmetric brayogensis, and thus a net result of either antibayrons of bayrons.

excellent post +1, very accurate and succinct. Edited December 5, 2016 by Mordred

[AbstractDreamer]

I cannot get to this right now, however. I can discuss this with you further at a later time.

 

Don't waste your time with me, I probably wont understand much. But if you can comment on your conclusions or possibilities that would be enlightening.

[Mordred]

I did some digging as nearly as I can tell the earliest model for antimatter universe was proposed by Omnes back in 1969. Unfortunately his original paper is behind a pay wall. However here is a brief paper at a slightly later date.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.38&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwi01cGJ-93QAhUFS2MKHUWWAPk4ChAWCC8wCA&usg=AFQjCNH0q0DNx8WhRtRO_RmHaTk1-kEO9w

 

Before 1^st August 2013, there was no other published information on this theory. It was published by me first.

 

 

You might try digging deeper before declaring such. It took me less than 1/2 hour to find previous publications on this proposal.

[Moontanman]

Would you also not require anti-distance, anti-electromagnetism, anti-singularites etc?

 

How do you reconcile retro-causality with anti-retro-causality?

 

Is this interpretation about Mutuality rather than Causality?

 

 

If you were responding to my post the anti part is relative, to the people in the anti universe time would flow the same way we see it. They would be isolated from us by the big bang...

[AbstractDreamer]

I was just making a general comment.

 

There's a lot of ways of symmetry.

 

Inside out, upside down, leftside right, frontside back, firstone last, clockwise anticlockwise etc

 

An anti-universe doesn't necessarily need to be opposingly symmeterical in all these aspects, but it certainly does need to be symmetrical in at least one.

 

Being symmetrical in one measure, say distance anti-distance, is enough to make it "not of this universe".

 

More than 1 symmetry might lead you back to the original form, via rotations, flips, and inversions.

Edited December 5, 2016 by AbstractDreamer

[Strange]

The following theory was published by myself on the 1st August 2013:

 

 

That is not a theory. It is misinformed speculation (supported by the Daily Mail!)

 

 

 

When the universe came into being at the big bang event,

 

There is no evidence for any such event.

 

 

In energy terms, antimatter is the opposite to matter. This means that, should the two meet, they counteract and cancel each other out. The sum energy of the universe is, as it has always been, zero.

 

We know this is not true. When matter and anti-matter meet, they annihilate and release a large amount of energy (Einstein's famous E=mc²).

 

I gave up reading at this point.

[Sensei]

Here's the answer: matter is curved space; and time and space are the same thing. Without matter, there is no space or time. Matter creates time. Antimatter, therefore, creates anti-time – time that runs in the opposite direction, that is. That is not my idea – it has been stated many times, by many theorists. For example, the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation (Richard P. Feynman and Ernst Stueckelberg) states that antimatter is identical to matter but moves backwards in time.

 

It can be easily falsified.

If you fuse proton with proton there is created antimatter:

 

[math]p^+ + p^+ \rightarrow D^+ + e^+ + v_e + 0.42 MeV[/math]

 

Positron is particle of antimatter..

 

Also if you have neutron-rich isotope such as Carbon-14, which is in your body,

it decays by beta decay minus,

which is emitting anti-neutrino particle, which is anti-matter particle..

 

[math]^{14}_6C \rightarrow ^{14}_7N + e^- + \bar{v}_e + 0.156 MeV[/math]

 

Antimatter particle obey normal matter conservation of energy, obey conservation of momentum, obey conservation of charge, etc. etc.

In CERN scientists make and gather antimatter particles in one experiment, keep them in electromagnetic traps, and then accelerate them when needed, in second experiment,

when they have to collide them with regular matter or other antimatter particles, to see what happens.

We know this is not true. When matter and anti-matter meet, they annihilate and release a large amount of energy (Einstein's famous E=mc²).

 

While annihilation of matter and antimatter there will be created at least E=2mc² energy.

m = relativistic-mass of matter,

2nd m = relativistic-mass of antimatter.

At rest (observer is at the same FoR as annihilating particles), relativistic-mass is equal to rest-mass.

So it'll be E=2m₀c²

For the case of electron and positron at rest:

m=m_e

E=2m_ec²

Two photons with 511 keV energy each,

from two particles, electron with 511 keV/c² rest-mass, and positron 511 keV/c² rest-mass.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Sensei