A "Theory" of the Universe

[YT2095]

this is one I`ve being working on for many years, and I think I`m getting close to a complete theory of the universe and the "Big Bang".

 

for ages I`ve pondered the idea of HOW we can get something from nothing, the only answer is to create an equal and opposite deficit (like borrowing money from a bank, you have 10 credits from the bank but you OWE 10 credits to the bank)

 

+1 and -1 =0

 

so what is the opposite in REAL terms? Matter Antimatter, in specific Positronium.

 

given infinate time and vacuum long before any big bang came into being, particles popped into and out of existance continuosly, this has been observed.

 

the point of Zero or Nothingness is so fine as to be almost impossible to attain. eventualy when enough matter was brought into being (like a Million borrowed from the bank with its subsequent debt) matter and antimatter.

 

Anihilation occurs, a universe identical to the matter is created in antimatter also, but just far enough appart to exist momentarily before anihilation, like Positronium, with a life of 10^ -7 seconds and resembling Hydrogen.

the product of this anihilation is 2 to 3 photons each.

 

these photons can then produce Matter as WE know it by K mesons and such as pointed out in post #89 in here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=174154#post174154

 

THAT is how we could get something from nothing!

 

or at least that`s what I`ve worked out so far as a "theory".

 

sensible input or thoughts appreciated...

[Deviation]

Where did the time vaccum come from ?

 

Who borowed it and why ?

 

So why dont U get something for me today, U will get it from nothing anyways.

[Severian]

That is actually not so far from the standard theory. Matter and antimatter are created out of the vacuum at the big bang in equal amounts. The obvious question then is, where has all the antimatter gone? There is a huge disparity in our observable universe between the amount of matter and antimatter...

 

As you say, it was thought for a while that CP violation (eg. production of K mesons) could create an asymmetry between matter and anti-matter, but unfortunately when you do the maths it doesn't work . The amount of CP violation which we have measured iisn't enough to explain why there is so much matter and so little antimatter.

 

This is actually one of the 'big problems' in fundamantal physics these days (known as the baryon asymmetry problem). I personally suspect that there may be extra CP violation lurking in the yet undiscovered Higgs bosons, and this may be enough to explain the asymmetry.

[YT2095]

Nice input!

 

as I say, I`m far from complete yet, but that`s basicly the skeleton I have so far + or - a few bones, I know little to nothing of Physics in this area at all, and have relied upon pure logic for the most of it, with the odd question to suport or refute any missing parts I have that I need to continue.

 

I only discoved Positronium the other day in an old 1964 Science dictionary by pure chance, and that was exactly the peice I`de been missing for years! and when the anihillation product was 2 to 3 photons, I was over the moon

 

just the fact that the product of getting back to Zero again left SOMETHING! albeit only loads of photons was exciting, until that point I`de always assumed that the matter/anti matter would just equal Zero again without a product and I`de be back at square one again.

[Spyman]

The only thing You need to do now, is to build a small machine that proves Your "theory" and by the CP violation creates energy from nothing.

 

A perfect perpetual motion machine, not only will it continue forever, (except for maintenance), it will also create infinite energy.

 

For myself, I don't belive anything can be created from nothing.

 

Just my humble thoughts as an novice...

[YT2095]

it seems odd that fundemental particles such as the Electron can appear and disappear at "will" and even seem to be in 2 places at once. there`s little else stranger than reality!

 

as for a Machine, it wouldn`t be practical or workable, it also would decay during cycles, a bit like pulling a spring with a weight on it down and letting go, it would eventualy stop, although it would cycle for a while, but less and less each time.

 

well that`s how I veiw my Model of it anyway

[CanadaAotS]

but it'd still be "free" energy, even if it was a tiny bit...

[Spyman]

There might be a fully logical explanation of why, when and how these particles gets created and then annihilates, we "only" need to find it out.

 

Entanglement is something different but may also have an explanation.

 

With "like pulling a spring with a weight on it down and letting go" You insert energy.

( = something is created of something and not from nothing)

 

Which changes Your theory to why BB ended up with more matter than antimatter instead of how all matter was created.

 

And if not there is a lot of hidden antimatter out there somewhere then there must be a difference that caused more normal matter to be created. That part I can agree on.

[YT2095]

not really as you`de NEVER get out what you put in originaly, any more than you get out of a rubber ball you drop from your hand that bounces a few times before staying still and at rest.

 

figure this, take positronium, it`s like Hydrogen but has a Positron in the middle instead of a Proton, it lives for 10^-7 seconds and then destroys itself leaving 2 or 3 photons as a product, those 2 or 3 photons could never make another positronium "Atom" situation again, it would take considerably more than that!

 

and so you can see the path of decay, perpetual motion it is NOT!

[Severian]

You don't get any energy out of the process. You have to put energy in at the start to create the matter and antimatter, and you getthis energy back again when they annihilate.

 

However, you can of course borrow it using the HUP....

[Spyman]

YT2095: I take it that Your last post was for CanadaAotS and maybe I interpreted to much from Your phrase: "for ages I`ve pondered the idea of HOW we can get something from nothing" ?

 

Sevarian: When borrowing energy by HUP doesn't all have to be paid back ?

If not then why is not perpetual motion machines and infinite energy a fact ?

 

AFAIK Not even BH gets away with paying their depths.

[YT2095]

Spyman, yes it was for the Canada dude, and my wording Could perhaps have been a little better worded or Claused, but in effect it`s still accurate, since all DID start from nothing, pity some saw it as an excuse for a "free lunch" LOL

[swansont]

Gravitational potential energy is negative. You can have positive energy elsewhere and still have zero total.

[Spyman]

Well, I don't belive that all DID start from nothing, so I guess it was my reason for "taking a bite".

[YT2095]

Well, I don't belive that all DID start from nothing so I guess it was my reason for "taking a bite".

 

that again would be an entirely different debate/thread on it`s own, as the question may arrise where did the Something you speak of originate? (no need to answer that in here).

 

this is based Purely upon HOW could "Everything" as we know it have come about from perfect Zeroness (my new word for the day).

 

That is the premis that I based my "search for truth/answer" on.

 

God or other beleif systems outside of established Scientific fact need not apply to this thread

[Severian]

Sevarian: When borrowing energy by HUP doesn't all have to be paid back ?

If not then why is not perpetual motion machines and infinite energy a fact ?

 

Yes, but what is the time scale? We could just be one big vacuum fluctuation.

[YT2095]

erm, forgive my Ignorance here, but what is HUP?

 

as I said this is NOT my area, it`s just a problem that I`m working out using pure logic where possible and as little to no maths or acronyms as I can get away with (they tend to "upset the flow" if that makes sense?)

[Spyman]

Yes, it would be an entirely different debate/thread, my misinterpretation, I will "back off".

 

 

Just one more point before I leave Your thread:

(I think at least I am allowed to defend my stand, against Your last post.)

 

From my understanding it's NOT an established Scientific fact that BB started from nothing.

 

In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory of the origin of the universe as an explosion of space itself, starting from an enormously dense state at some finite time in the past.

However' date=' due to a lack of a theory of quantum gravity, there is no way to say whether the singularity is an actual origin point for the universe or whether the physical processes that govern the regime cause the universe to be effectively eternal in character.[/quote']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

I don't belive in God or other religious systems.

 

So even if BB started from an singularity it was not from nothing...

 

 

It was not my intention to pull it off topic, I appologize for that.

 

 

EDIT:

 

YT2095: HUP = Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_uncertainty_principle

 

Severian: I think 13.7 billion years is a very long time for one big vacuum fluctuation and where is all the antimatter for the annihilation ?

(If it's missing it leaves the door open for perpetual motion with excess energy.)

[YT2095]

No worries !

 

as I mentioned that poster #2 neglected to read, all SENSIBLE input appreciated

 

and I also realise that I still have holes or rather Gaps in my idea so far, but I`m as close now as I`ve ever been (I think?).

[Severian]

Severian: I think 13.7 billion years is a very long time for one big vacuum fluctuation and where is all the antimatter for the annihilation ?

 

Yes, I agree. I wasn't advocating it, just pointing out that it is possible. There is still a finite probability of this happening, and you can argue anthropically that for us to exist it must have happened (ie. that there have been lots of other universes which just fizzled out). The antimatter for the annihilation is a separate issue, which is a problem for pretty much any big bang theory, as I pointed out in my first post.

 

YT: I fail to see why my post was not 'sensible'. I was pointing out the cannonical point of view on the topic as seen by the scientific community.

[YT2095]

YT: I fail to see why my post was not 'sensible'. I was pointing out the cannonical point of view on the topic as seen by the scientific community.

 

oh dear, I fear you`ve got the wrong end of the stick here, it wasn`t your post that I was refering to, it was post #2 I deleted a post between mine and yours, I didn`t know that you can`t see it, I appologise for any confusion that it`s caused, not being on the "other side" I don`t know all that you can`t see and what you can, but for you I`ll undelete the post to show you, I can`t say fairer than that

[Ophiolite]

This may not be relevant, but in Hoyle's steady state theory matter is created 'out of nothing' as the Universe expands. While steady state has been dead in the water since the cosmic background radiation was identified, it might pay you to google up some details on how the matter creation was meant to work. Sorry, I don't have any specific links on it.

[Severian]

oh dear, I fear you`ve got the wrong end of the stick here, it wasn`t your post that I was refering to, it was post #2 I deleted a post between mine and yours, I didn`t know that you can`t see it, I appologise for any confusion that it`s caused, not being on the "other side" I don`t know all that you can`t see and what you can, but for you I`ll undelete the post to show you, I can`t say fairer than that

 

All becomes clear.....

[brad89]

You know your theory is not that bad. After all, it is the only thing that can make something from nothing. Yet, when you have matter and antimatter equal zero when taking the sum of their masses, you should have zero again. I believe that matter and antimatter cancel out in contact. What would mean 'in contact' though, because we are talking about an area where space-time doesn't exist. In contact almost means in existance in this case. When these two things are in existance, they destroy each other, meaning that it would go back down to zero again. Therefore, perhaps antimatter and matter universes are not touching. Maybe it isn't in existance, maybe it really does mean touching each other. Yet, at the big bang, the singularity was 'touching', how does matter and antimatter spew out from the same place without destroying each other?

[Deviation]