Quantum Fluctuation Origin and Anti-Gravity Voids Expansion Theory of the Universe

[coffeesippin]

In which we propose the Quantum Fluctuation as proposed by Pascual Jordan seeded the universe with stars, all else arising from those; and Anti-Gravity Anti-Matter Void Expansion powers the expansion and increasing rate of expansion of the universe.

https://phys.org/news/2012-01-repulsive-gravity-alternative-dark-energy.html

anti gravity voids

(PhysOrg.com) -- When scientists discovered in 1998 that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, the possibility that dark energy could explain the observation was intriguing. But because there has been little progress in figuring out exactly what dark energy is, the idea has since become more of a problem than a solution for some scientists. One physicist, Massimo Villata of the National Institute for Astrophysics (INAF) in Pino Torinese, Italy, describes dark energy as “embarrassing,” saying that the concept is an  ad hoc  element to standard cosmology and is devoid of any physical meaning. Villata is one of many scientists who are looking for new explanations of the Universe’s accelerating expansion that involve some form of repulsive gravity. In this case, the repulsive gravity could stem from antimatter hiding in voids.

 

“Cosmic voids (and in particular the nearby Local Void) are observationally very well known and constitute the largest structures of which our Universe is composed,” Villata told  PhysOrg.com. “The problem is whether they are really empty or contain the repulsive antimatter.”

In Villata’s paper, which will soon be published in  Astrophysics  and Space Science, he suggests that antimatter could be hiding in these large voids, separated from matter by mutual gravitational repulsion. As he explained  previously, the gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter is a prediction of general relativity. In this scenario, matter has a positive gravitational charge while antimatter has a (hypothetical) negative gravitational charge. As a result, both matter and antimatter are gravitationally self-attractive, yet mutually repulsive. The gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter could be so powerful, in fact, that Villata has calculated that it could be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the Universe, eliminating the need for  dark energy  and possibly dark matter.

[snipped by mod, owing to copyright rules]

 

“Some people may think that my analysis of general relativity predicting antigravity is not correct or appropriate,” he added. “In this case, a further, definitive test is mentioned in my last paper: the antigravitational lensing effect. In principle, if we had a good 3D map of galaxy clusters lying beyond the voids, it would be relatively easy to analyze whether some of them have shapes squeezed around the line of sight, which would mean that they are aligned with large concentrations of  antimatter  in the intervening void. But the problem is that there is another concurrent effect, which strongly distorts the distribution of galaxies in the radial direction, due to the peculiar motions affecting the redshift measurements: the finger-of-god effect, which stretches the shape of clusters along the line of sight. It is thus very difficult to distinguish whether a cluster already severely stretched by this effect is further thinned by antigravitational lensing.”

 

Pascual Jordan Biography

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Jordan_Pascual.html

A star may be made from nothing: “If a star's negative gravitational energy balances its positive rest mass energy.”

 

That Jordan never won a Nobel Prize in physics is a puzzle. Some blame his inability to give elegant lectures because of a stutter; some blame his pro-Nazi politics or his support, after World War II, for a German nuclear weapons program; some blame the fact that  Born  misplaced Jordan's  1925  manuscript in which  Fermi-Dirac  statistics were first presented, thus depriving the modest Jordan of his rightful claim to priority over  Pauli. But the fact remains that his contributions to the development of modern quantum theory were as fundamental and far-reaching as those of many whose achievements were recognized with a Nobel Prize. It was Jordan, more than anyone else, who developed a mathematically elegant formulation of matrix mechanics. It was Jordan who went on to consolidate matrix mechanics with  Dirac's alternative operator calculus and  Erwin Schrödinger's wave-mechanical formulation in the comprehensive formalism known as statistical transformation theory. It was Jordan who did more than anyone other than  Dirac  to inaugurate the program of quantum field theory, in ways such as developing the second quantization approach and being the first to discover the problem of divergences in quantum field theory. And it was Jordan who, along with  von Neumann  and  Eugene Wigner, was developing more abstract algebraic frameworks for quantum mechanics. Not without reason has Jordan been described as "the unsung hero among the creators of quantum mechanics".

 

 

Massimo Villata .. anti-gravity voids

 

https://phys.org/news/2011-04-antigravity-dark-energy-universe-expansion.html

 

Void pushing Milky Way

https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/cosmic-void-pushes-milky-way-3001201723/ Now,  using the Cosmicflows-2 catalog of galaxies, Yehuda Hoffman (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) and colleagues have mapped out the movements of more than 8,000 galaxies and confirmed that, yes, the two titans that determine how local galaxies flow through the cosmic web are Shapley and this single, as-yet unmapped void.

 

Voids are structures with a 'shell' and not simply empty space. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1990MNRAS.247..473M

 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vast-cosmic-voids-merge-like-soap-bubbles/

 

Lambas and his colleagues compared a simulation of the cosmic web with 245 cosmic voids that they identified from data compiled by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, a large ground-based survey of the heavens. The team found that the voids move at 300–400 kilometres per second above and beyond their motion associated with the Universe’s expansion.

 

cosmic voids offer a key advantage, says van de Weygaert. Because they contain so little matter, their physics is relatively simple and dominated by dark energy—the  mysterious entity that is revving up the rate at which the Universe is expanding. 

"If a star's negative gravitational energy balances its positive rest mass energy" then a star will have arisen from nothing.   

https://www.google.com/search?q=pascual+jordan&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA803CA812&oq=pascual+jordan&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59l3j69i60j0.3405j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Strange]

Probably worth keeping an eye on the CERN ALPHA project which will probably falsify this hypothesis before too long: http://alpha.web.cern.ch/node/248

So far, preliminary results are slightly more favour of antimatter behaving just like matter.

Also, from the introduction to the paper:

Quote

There are many compelling experimental and theoretical arguments^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} that suggest that the gravitational mass of antimatter cannot differ from the gravitational or inertial mass of normal matter, that is, that the weak equivalence principle holds. 

 

[beecee]

17 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

.https://phys.org/news/2012-01-repulsive-gravity-alternative-dark-energy.html

DE could well be described as anti-gravity, as it is acting against gravity that wants to collapse/attract all the matter/energy in the universe, against the  DE that is acting to expand the spacetime between galaxies but only having success over large scales. Certainly not though any envisaging of all of us floating off the planet along with everything else not tied down.

Quote

That Jordan never won a Nobel Prize in physics is a puzzle.

We have many scientific papers based purely on hypotheticals or science that  we are as yet unable to actually experiment with or observe. Jordan's paper is one such hypothetical. Einstein if you recall did not get his Nobel for relativity....why you may ask? "Einstein's failure to win a Nobel until 1921, and that prize's not being awarded for his work on relativity, is generally ascribed to these factors:

1. Lack of sufficient experimental proof for the theories at the time (some distrust in the early results on the precession of Mercury, and the Eddington starlight observations).
2. Failure by some members of the committee to understand relativity
3. anti-Semitism
4. skepticism generally about the utility of relativity, and whether it was physics at all.

If these factors were in fact the reason that the relativity work did not garner a prize in 1921, why didn't the relativity work merit a second Nobel prize after, say 1945? Surely the work on cyclotrons and the bomb provided firm experimental support for the validity of the theory, and by then the overall utility would have been understood as well".

https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6106/why-didnt-einstein-win-a-second-nobel-prize-for-relativity

Edited November 26, 2018 by beecee

[coffeesippin]

General Relativity, while questioned in other times and places, is not questioned in this post, but rather this post shows GR SUPPORTS itself with NO BB.   In question is whether Big Bang happened, that question necessary for discussion on the alternative of Quantum Fluctuation seeding simultaneously across spacetime which would account for the much more mature universe which we see across the space of itself than BB suggests is possible.  Quantum Fluctuations themselves seeding stars is a part of the theory of Inflation, so should not be considered strange appearing outside of a BB scenario.    

https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/there-was-no-big-bang-radical-theory-of-the-universe-states          Physicist Juliano César Silva Neves hails from University of Campinas’s Mathematics, Statistics & Scientific Computation Institute (IMECC-UNICAMP), in Brazil.      https://www.ime.unicamp.br/en/graduate/mathematics      http://www.brazilmonitor.com/index.php/2017/12/03/brazilian-scientist-silva-neves-i-believe-the-big-bang-never-happened/     

"For instance, there is way more isotopic homogeneity in the universe, say in the cosmic microwave background, than should exist and that’s been difficult to account for."   

"Today, we know the theory of general relativity permits a non-singular cosmology, with no Big Bang, at least in theory.”   

"Where Bardeen introduced a scale to explain the goings on inside a regular black hole, Neves and his postdoctoral supervisor, Prof. Alberto Vazques Saa, introduced a “scale factor,” into general relativity equations, to explain the rate at which the universe is expanding. Once the scale factor is introduced, the singularity and the Big Bang disappear. Universal expansion works just fine without them."   

1989 Great Wall of Galaxies (Geller and Huchra) Margaret Geller of Harvard Smithsonian Centre for Astrophyhsics, “The size of the structure indicates that in the [present theories .... something is really wrong that makes a difference.” Boston Globe Nov. 17, 1989. “No known force could produce a structure this big in the time since the universe was formed.”

     Admitted: 1989 is almost 30 years ago, and many new things have been discovered since then, INCLUDING the action that cosmic voids move groups of galaxies including our own.  THAT force is the now KNOWN force that COULD have produced a structure the size of the Great Wall, especially in the time available to the new speculation of simultaneous cosmic seeding across spacetime, with no BB.  "Lambas and his colleagues compared a simulation of the cosmic web with 245 cosmic voids that they identified from data compiled by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, a large ground-based survey of the heavens. The team found that the voids move at 300–400 kilometres per second above and beyond their motion associated with the Universe’s expansion." 

On 11/26/2018 at 2:50 PM, beecee said:

DE could well be described as anti-gravity, as it is acting against gravity that wants to collapse/attract all the matter/energy in the universe, against the  DE that is acting to expand the spacetime between galaxies but only having success over large scales. Certainly not though any envisaging of all of us floating off the planet along with everything else not tied down.

We have many scientific papers based purely on hypotheticals or science that  we are as yet unable to actually experiment with or observe. Jordan's paper is one such hypothetical. Einstein if you recall did not get his Nobel for relativity....why you may ask? "Einstein's failure to win a Nobel until 1921, and that prize's not being awarded for his work on relativity, is generally ascribed to these factors:

1. Lack of sufficient experimental proof for the theories at the time (some distrust in the early results on the precession of Mercury, and the Eddington starlight observations).
2. Failure by some members of the committee to understand relativity
3. anti-Semitism
4. skepticism generally about the utility of relativity, and whether it was physics at all.

If these factors were in fact the reason that the relativity work did not garner a prize in 1921, why didn't the relativity work merit a second Nobel prize after, say 1945? Surely the work on cyclotrons and the bomb provided firm experimental support for the validity of the theory, and by then the overall utility would have been understood as well".

https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6106/why-didnt-einstein-win-a-second-nobel-prize-for-relativity

A charge of anti-Semitism against Jordan is rebuked easily by the fact that Einstein nominated Jordan TWICE for the Nobel, and they remained in touch after the war, along with the other QM founders.  While Jordan had been a member of the Nazi party, so were the obvious large majority of Germans who elected Hitler.  Your comment is the ONLY one I have read anywhere accusing Jordan of anti-Semiticism.    "Pascual Jordan's colleagues — Heisenberg, Born, Pauli, Fermi, Dirac, and Wigner — were all awarded the Nobel Prize in physics. But not Jordan. He was nominated twice in the 1920's by Einstein, but Heisenberg and Born considered Jordan more of a mathematician than a physicist — hurting his chances."    https://www.google.com/search?q=Einstein+nominates+Pascual+Jordan+for+Nobel&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA803CA812&oq=Einstein+nominates+Pascual+Jordan+for+Nobel&aqs=chrome..69i57.12735j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

     Why wasn't Jordan nominated after the war?   His 'stars from nothing' formula, which I repeat was so compulsive that when Einstein first heard it he abruptly stop walking across a street even though oncoming traffic had to stop to avoid hitting him .. the theory directly contradicted the need for a singularity.  And now with expanding anti-gravity-anti-matter voids swelling out and pushing matter together into the filaments (and walls, etc) we have no need for BB as the propulsive mechanism for Expansion .. seemingly without negating GR, whether true or false.

Edited December 3, 2018 by coffeesippin
included url for Jordan/Nobel and notes on the Nobel

[beecee]

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

General Relativity, while questioned in other times and places, is not questioned in this post, but rather this post shows GR SUPPORTS itself with NO BB.   

GR is not really in question yet, rather tests, research and data are continually being checked, to determine whether GR stands up to the further more precise observations....That's science, that's the scientific method and so far it is doing its job admirable.. 

And I had thought I had mentioned it somewhere, while GR may support a universe with no BB, the BB anyway fits hand in glove with GR....and the important thing to consider, is if we did find any observational evidence validating a "no BB scenario" it would I envisage be an Oscillating type scenario, and one of the theories that was in competition with the BB and Steady State in the early fifties...And also just as obviously if this "Oscillating" sometimes now called the Big Bounce was shown to be nore likely then the context of the BB we now accept, it would in actual fact entail a BB anyway, probably a number of BB's as the bounces reoccurred. But again, the Oscillating  and Steady State fell out of favour  due to the continued evidence supporting the BB, until the CMBR was discovered, which saw the complete demise of the other two.

Quote

 the theory directly contradicted the need for a singularity.  And now with expanding anti-gravity-anti-matter voids swelling out and pushing matter together into the filaments (and walls, etc) we have no need for BB as the propulsive mechanism for Expansion .. seemingly without negating GR, whether true or false.

What do you mean by anti matter voids? Where are these anti matter voids?

The forming of the spider web like filiments, is simply gravity over smaller scales acting on galaxies etc, while the overall expansion acts over large scales. Again simply put, the BB still holds pride of place as the theory describing most accurately the evolution of the space, time, matter and energy up to the present day. 

The singularity that you speak of is simply the region where our laws  of physics and GR break down...the quantum/Planck realm, not any singularity of any infinite qualities.

On 11/26/2018 at 1:34 PM, coffeesippin said:

Villata is one of many scientists who are looking for new explanations of the Universe’s accelerating expansion that involve some form of repulsive gravity. In this case, the repulsive gravity could stem from antimatter hiding in voids.

"Could stem from" is worth noting. But again, like any good scientist, and like many theories of how the universe came to be, this is another being researched. I wish him the best of luck in actually discovering/observing or some mathematically supported scenario that makes his model viable. It changes nothing though as far as the BB and GR now stand.

Edited December 3, 2018 by beecee

[coffeesippin]

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

GR is not really in question yet, rather tests, research and data are continually being checked, to determine whether GR stands up to the further more precise observations....That's science, that's the scientific method and so far it is doing its job admirable.. 

And I had thought I had mentioned it somewhere, while GR may support a universe with no BB, the BB anyway fits hand in glove with GR....and the important thing to consider, is if we did find any observational evidence validating a "no BB scenario" it would I envisage be an Oscillating type scenario, and one of the theories that was in competition with the BB and Steady State in the early fifties...And also just as obviously if this "Oscillating" sometimes now called the Big Bounce was shown to be nore likely the the context of the BB we now accept, it would in actual fact entail a BB anyway, probably a number of BB's as the bounces reoccurred. But again, the Oscillating  and Steady State fell out of favour  due to the continued evidence supporting the BB, until the CMBR was discovered, which saw the complete demise of the other two.

What do you mean by anti matter voids? Where are these anti matter voids?

The forming of the spider web like filiments, is simply gravity over smaller scales acting on galaxies etc, while the overall expansion acts over large scales. Again simply put, the BB still holds pride of place as the theory describing most accurately the evolution of the space, time, matter and energy up to the present day. 

The singularity that you speak of is simply the region where our laws  of physics and GR break down...the quantum/Planck realm, not any singularity of any infinite qualities.

If you don't know where the anti-gravity anti-matter Voids are you did not reach much that I presented.  An anti-gravity Void is providing significant propulsion for our local group of galaxies.  Anti gravity arises from anti-matter. That's contained in the information.  I'm totally surprised you hadn't heard of them.  GR is in question all over the planet.  But I WON'T get into that because I'll be accused of hijacking my own thread and suspended or banned.  I'm onto you BeeCee.    I'm actually considering reporting you for your accusation against Jordan .. that's slander, in print its libel.  However .. I'll just as you to abstain further criminal accusation when discussing with me.   You could clear the air and enhance your reputation by apologizing for that one.  

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120215-dark-energy-antimatter-physics-alternate-space-science/

Edited December 3, 2018 by coffeesippin
include url

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

If you don't know where the anti-gravity anti-matter Voids are you did not reach much that I presented.  An anti-gravity Void is providing significant propulsion for our local group of galaxies.  Anti gravity arises from anti-matter. That's contained in the information.  I'm totally surprised you hadn't heard of them.  GR is in question all over the planet.  But I WON'T get into that because I'll be accused of hijacking my own thread and suspended or banned.  I'm onto you BeeCee.    I'm actually considering reporting you for your accusation against Jordan .. that's slander, in print its libel.  However .. I'll just as you to abstain further criminal accusation when discussing with me.   You could clear the air and enhance your reputation by apologizing for that one.  

 I didn't say anti gravity voids...I said anti matter voids, which you mentioned. Now again, where are these anti matter voids?

And of course it is still only hypothetical...no experimental and/or observational data, just "could be from".

Again GR is not in question as you would like to imply, simply continually being further tested in line with further observations. If it faails these, then that's big big news.

Your other nonsense is ignored.

On 11/27/2018 at 6:50 AM, beecee said:

DE could well be described as anti-gravity, as it is acting against gravity that wants to collapse/attract all the matter/energy in the universe, against the  DE that is acting to expand the spacetime between galaxies but only having success over large scales. Certainly not though any envisaging of all of us floating off the planet along with everything else not tied down.

We have many scientific papers based purely on hypotheticals or science that  we are as yet unable to actually experiment with or observe. Jordan's paper is one such hypothetical. Einstein if you recall did not get his Nobel for relativity....why you may ask? "Einstein's failure to win a Nobel until 1921, and that prize's not being awarded for his work on relativity, is generally ascribed to these factors:

1. Lack of sufficient experimental proof for the theories at the time (some distrust in the early results on the precession of Mercury, and the Eddington starlight observations).
2. Failure by some members of the committee to understand relativity
3. anti-Semitism
4. skepticism generally about the utility of relativity, and whether it was physics at all.

If these factors were in fact the reason that the relativity work did not garner a prize in 1921, why didn't the relativity work merit a second Nobel prize after, say 1945? Surely the work on cyclotrons and the bomb provided firm experimental support for the validity of the theory, and by then the overall utility would have been understood as well".

https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6106/why-didnt-einstein-win-a-second-nobel-prize-for-relativity

 

On 11/27/2018 at 2:13 AM, Strange said:

Probably worth keeping an eye on the CERN ALPHA project which will probably falsify this hypothesis before too long: http://alpha.web.cern.ch/node/248

So far, preliminary results are slightly more favour of antimatter behaving just like matter.

Also, from the introduction to the paper:

Exactly...If for argument sake we planets stars etc, were all made of anti matter, then we would be calling that anti matter, matter, and matter, anti matter if you get my drift. 

[coffeesippin]

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

 I didn't say anti gravity voids...I said anti matter voids, which you mentioned. Now again, where are these anti matter voids?

And of course it is still only hypothetical...no experimental and/or observational data, just "could be from".

Again GR is not in question as you would like to imply, simply continually being further tested in line with further observations. If it faails these, then that's big big news.

Your other nonsense is ignored.

If you read posts instead of just scanning you will see they are one and the same.  I told you exactly where one of them is.  The url is there and some details.  Contrary to my first opinion I also reported your slander and libel but only after you called my request for you to abstain from libel and slander "nonsense."   I'm also going to see if it's allowable to block your comments, as you do NOT read what others post, you are NOT interested in new science, and your frequent use of the word "nonsense" describing other opinions is not tolerable.  

[beecee]

2 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

If you read posts instead of just scanning you will see they are one and the same.  I told you exactly where one of them is.  The url is there and some details.  

Anti gravity is only hypothetical, unless as I have already said, you loosely apply it to DE.

Anti matter has never yet really been observed although it was probably created in the first few microseconds of the universe, where it annihilated  with normal matter...Although there is still some unknown quantity apparently with why there was a slight excess of normal matter. see..... https://cms.cern/physics/what-and-where-antimatter

Again as I said in my first reply, we have many papers written on hypothetical aspects of possible cosmological scenarios that have yet to be validated...This is one of them.

ps: GR also predicts worm holes, but as yet they have never been seen or evidenced, so still remain as a hypothetical aspect of GR.

Quote

 you are NOT interested in new science, and your frequent use of the word "nonsense" describing other opinions is not tolerable.  

The online evidence totally refutes that nonsensical claim...Check out the science forum for the many scientific articles and papers that I post. The trick is of course to know what is hypothetical and/or speculative, as opposed to articles and papers on scientific models, facts and theories. 

 

PS: Please note also that the article you linked to is from 2012, not that there is anything wrong with that. The obvious relevant fact is that if this was "validated" as you appear it to want to be, then we would have heard more up to date data as to its validity or otherwise. Yes it was an interesting article and where I get most of my new science stories from, although again the journalistic lean towards sensationalism in headlines needs to be watched.

 

Let me make a late addition, anti matter has been created in the Lab in the form of Positrons..

Edited December 3, 2018 by beecee

[Strange]

4 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

A charge of anti-Semitism against Jordan is rebuked easily by the fact that Einstein nominated Jordan TWICE for the Nobel, and they remained in touch after the war, along with the other QM founders. 

That article is suggesting that anti-semitism by the Nobel Committee against Einstein may have played a role in the fact he didn't get a second Nobel Prize. I don't see where Jordan comes into it. Was he on the Nobel Prize Committee?

[coffeesippin]

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

That article is suggesting that anti-semitism by the Nobel Committee against Einstein may have played a role in the fact he didn't get a second Nobel Prize. I don't see where Jordan comes into it. Was he on the Nobel Prize Committee?

We had been talking about Jordan lacking a Nobel, not Einstein. 

What's the process for blocking participants?  BeeCee is entirely unacceptable to me for many good reasons.

Never mind .. I found the Ignore User function, and used it.  

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by coffeesippin
Added the 'ignore user' line.

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

We had been talking about Jordan lacking a Nobel, not Einstein.

And I likewise pointed out that even Einstein did not get the Nobel for SR or GR,  as one would obviously believe or expect. Jordan of course did not have any validated theory, as I pointed out.

Edited December 3, 2018 by beecee

[coffeesippin]

BeeCee I've used the ignore user option.  Your posts no longer show to me here.   

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

BeeCee I've used the ignore user option.  Your posts no longer show to me here.   

That's your prerogative but I will continue to post when the need arises and correct any errors and/or misconceptions that I recognise..

. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by beecee

[Strange]

28 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

We had been talking about Jordan lacking a Nobel, not Einstein. 

So that article may have been irrelevant, but it wasn't accusing Jordan of anti-semitism. 

[beecee]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

So that article may have been irrelevant, but it wasn't accusing Jordan of anti-semitism. 

He, coffee was asking why this Jordan never received the Nobel for what was.is no more then  a possible hypothetical situation. I replied that Einstein missed the Nobel for the obvious work and listed some of the possible reasons why that happened in Einstein's case...One was anti semitism among other possible reasons I supplied in an article. 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

He, coffee was asking why this Jordan never received the Nobel for what was.is no more then  a possible hypothetical situation. I replied that Einstein missed the Nobel for the obvious work and listed some of the possible reasons why that happened in Einstein's case...One was anti semitism among other possible reasons I supplied in an article. 

I got that. Coffeesippin, obviously didn't.

There are a great many people who maybe should have got Nobel Prizes but didn't. Often for reasons that have nothing to do with the science. 

However, as far as I know, no one has ever received a Nobel Prize for a hypothesis that hasn't been confirmed. Which is almost certainly the reason that Jordan never got one for this idea. Whether he should have got one for his other work ...who knows. There are a limited number of prizes and an almost unlimited number of deserving recipients.

But while this might be an interesting discussion, we are getting off topic and if we are not careful, the mods will tell us off!

(It might be an interesting topic for another thread: who'd should have got Nobels and why didn't they...)

[swansont]

5 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

I'm actually considering reporting you for your accusation against Jordan .. that's slander, in print its libel. 

!

Moderator Note

There was no accusation. You misread the post. If you want to discuss the details of this, make a post in "suggestions, comments and support" 

 

[Q-reeus]

6 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

If you don't know where the anti-gravity anti-matter Voids are you did not reach much that I presented.  An anti-gravity Void is providing significant propulsion for our local group of galaxies.  Anti gravity arises from anti-matter. That's contained in the information.  I'm totally surprised you hadn't heard of them.  GR is in question all over the planet.  But I WON'T get into that because I'll be accused of hijacking my own thread and suspended or banned.  I'm onto you BeeCee.    I'm actually considering reporting you for your accusation against Jordan .. that's slander, in print its libel.  However .. I'll just as you to abstain further criminal accusation when discussing with me.   You could clear the air and enhance your reputation by apologizing for that one.  

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120215-dark-energy-antimatter-physics-alternate-space-science/

coffeesippin - there is a very good argument why anti-matter should have the same gravitational sign as ordinary matter.
In every anti-matter particle detection so far observed, stretching back many decades, it's always the case deflection in a magnetic field is exactly opposite to the corresponding ordinary matter particle. This immediately means the inertial mass of both particle and anti-particle must be identical in magnitude and sign.
The Equivalence Principle then requires the gravitational masses to likewise be identical.

So if anti-gravity anti-particles were true, that fundamentally violates the Equivalence Principle. It's why afaik a main reason the Wheeler-Feynman notion of anti-particles being ordinary particles traveling back in time, was abandoned. Because that idea does naturally imply anti-gravitation of anti-particles.

4 hours ago, beecee said:

...Anti matter has never yet really been observed although it was probably created in the first few microseconds of the universe, where it annihilated  with normal matter...Although there is still some unknown quantity apparently with why there was a slight excess of normal matter. see..... https://cms.cern/physics/what-and-where-antimatter

????? Just read the two paras under 'The evidence spoke for itself' in that very article you linked to!! First observed in 1932 (positrons), and whole anti-hydrogen atoms made back in 1995.

Now if you meant antimatter in an astronomical/cosmological setting, that should have been clearly stated. And you would still have been wrong:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4620

What hasn't been identified is large scale structures i.e. voids comprised mostly or entirely of anti-matter as neutral atoms/molecules.

[Just saw your late edit at bottom admitting positrons have been created in lab. Also anti-hydrogen - as mentioned in the very article you cited.]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Again as I said in my first reply, we have many papers written on hypothetical aspects of possible cosmological scenarios that have yet to be validated...This is one of them.

ps: GR also predicts worm holes, but as yet they have never been seen or evidenced, so still remain as a hypothetical aspect of GR.

The online evidence totally refutes that nonsensical claim...Check out the science forum for the many scientific articles and papers that I post. The trick is of course to know what is hypothetical and/or speculative, as opposed to articles and papers on scientific models, facts and theories. 

 

PS: Please note also that the article you linked to is from 2012, not that there is anything wrong with that. The obvious relevant fact is that if this was "validated" as you appear it to want to be, then we would have heard more up to date data as to its validity or otherwise. Yes it was an interesting article and where I get most of my new science stories from, although again the journalistic lean towards sensationalism in headlines needs to be watched.

 

Let me make a late addition, anti matter has been created in the Lab in the form of Positrons..

 

[coffeesippin]

For anyone interested, discussion on the accusation of anti-Semitism was split off, taking some important points with it that did not involve the accusation, not that I'm upset, it was a long paragraph.  

End of that story.   

But hopefully I'll see some discussion on this topic, which despite, Strange, your lack of enthusiasm for, "...CERN ALPHA project which will probably falsify this hypothesis before too long..." is becoming surrounded by evidence as shown this early in the topic. Let it be known though, I first proposed this idea 10 or more years ago, before Villata, not that I'm bragging or accusing Villata of anything, he almost certainly never knew my name or my idea, and if he did, more power to him for getting it out, because it's the science behind the idea that is important.   

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Strange, your lack of enthusiasm for, "...CERN ALPHA project which will probably falsify this hypothesis before too long..." i

I have enormous enthusiasm for the CERN ALPHA project! Although it will almost certainly confirm the fact that antimatter behaves the same as matter, there is a small chance it won't, which is always exciting.

[coffeesippin]

15 minutes ago, Q-reeus said:

coffeesippin - there is a very good argument why anti-matter should have the same gravitational sign as ordinary matter.
In every anti-matter particle detection so far observed, stretching back many decades, it's always the case deflection in a magnetic field is exactly opposite to the corresponding ordinary matter particle. This immediately means the inertial mass of both particle and anti-particle must be identical in magnitude and sign.
The Equivalence Principle then requires the gravitational masses to likewise be identical.

So if anti-gravity anti-particles were true, that fundamentally violates the Equivalence Principle. It's why afaik a main reason the Wheeler-Feynman notion of anti-particles being ordinary particles traveling back in time, was abandoned. Because that idea does naturally imply anti-gravitation of anti-particles.

????? Just read the two paras under 'The evidence spoke for itself' in that very article you linked to!! First observed in 1932 (positrons), and whole anti-hydrogen atoms made back in 1995.

Now if you meant antimatter in an astronomical/cosmological setting, that should have been clearly stated. And you would still have been wrong:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4620

What hasn't been identified is large scale structures i.e. voids comprised mostly or entirely of anti-matter as neutral atoms/molecules.

[Just saw your late edit at bottom admitting positrons have been created in lab. Also anti-hydrogen - as mentioned in the very article you cited.]

 

Hi Q .. Thanks for your thoughts. 

BeeCee brought the created particle in as a diversion, apparently without even looking at the articles I included that clearly show an anti-matter/anti-gravity void propelling our local group of galaxies at speeds far greater than what they normally would be moving.  I think it's easy to see in the original post.

Most of what I read said the verdict is still far, far out on the behaviour of anti-matter, as it is on many topics.

One of the most important aspects though of my speculation is that it easily accounts for the large structures like the Great Wall which should not be there in the time frame approved, along with the mature galaxies in the distant universe.   If spacetime were seeded across its measurements time becomes no hindrance to those maturations because everything began at the same time with no need for Inflation or frequent expansions of the age of the universe, that being a constant since BB was proposed. That thought is explained further in my posts above.

I'm finding more solid science all the time for the idea.  If I'm not booted again I'll be presenting what I find.

Also, I hope everyone realizes the idea works with Relativity, so I'm not trying to topple Einstein, I don't have enough understanding for that, my talent seems to be the big picture into which I and others fit the details.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

I have enormous enthusiasm for the CERN ALPHA project! Although it will almost certainly confirm the fact that antimatter behaves the same as matter, there is a small chance it won't, which is always exciting.

I apologize for my poor wording, I meant your lack of enthusiasm for results supporting my proposal.  

[Strange]

2 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

BeeCee brought the created particle in as a diversion, apparently without even looking at the articles I included that clearly show an anti-matter/anti-gravity void propelling our local group of galaxies at speeds far greater than what they normally would be moving.  I think it's easy to see in the original post.

The only place I can see that anti-matter is mentioned is the Villata paper. Does anyone else provide any support for this idea?

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Q-reeus said:

????? Just read the two paras under 'The evidence spoke for itself' in that very article you linked to!! First observed in 1932 (positrons), and whole anti-hydrogen atoms made back in 1995.

Quote

Now if you meant antimatter in an astronomical/cosmological setting, that should have been clearly stated. And you would still have been wrong:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4620

 

Quote

What hasn't been identified is large scale structures i.e. voids comprised mostly or entirely of anti-matter as neutral atoms/molecules.

Hya q-reeus! Yes obviously in large scale structures was what was meant.

Quote

[Just saw your late edit at bottom admitting positrons have been created in lab. Also anti-hydrogen - as mentioned in the very article you cited.]

Admitting??  I simply forgot to include it in my effort to convince our friend the differences between scientific theory, hypotheticals and speculation.

 

7 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

But hopefully I'll see some discussion on this topic, which despite, Strange, your lack of enthusiasm for, "...CERN ALPHA project which will probably falsify this hypothesis before too long..." is becoming surrounded by evidence as shown this early in the topic. Let it be known though, I first proposed this idea 10 or more years ago, before Villata, not that I'm bragging or accusing Villata of anything, he almost certainly never knew my name or my idea, and if he did, more power to him for getting it out, because it's the science behind the idea that is important.   

The point being that again this article/paper is based on hypotheticals, and that is the prime reason why the Nobel was not awarded for it and nor should it have been. The BB stands as our best explanation of the evolution of space, time, matter, energy from a point t+10-43 seconds.

Let me say though, that while being hypothetical, it is still part of science, and the possibility exists where observations and/or experiments could give it some validation. In the meantime and in the foreseeable future,  the BB stands along with GR as our prime description of the evolution of the universe and space and time.

While GR may support a universe with no BB, the BB anyway fits hand in glove with GR....and the important thing to consider, is if we did find any observational evidence validating a "no BB scenario" as we currently understand it, it would I envisage be an Oscillating type scenario, and one of the theories that was in competition with the BB and Steady State in the early fifties...And also just as obviously if this "Oscillating" sometimes now called the Big Bounce was shown to be more likely then the context of the BB we now currently accept, it would in actual fact entail a BB anyway, probably a number of BB's as the bounces reoccurred. But again, the Oscillating  and Steady State fell out of favour  due to the continued evidence supporting the BB, until the CMBR was discovered, which saw the complete demise of the other two. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by beecee

[coffeesippin]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

The only place I can see that anti-matter is mentioned is the Villata paper. Does anyone else provide any support for this idea?

I'm suffering from a severe cold with sore throat so I didn't look long at the paper.  I also can't understand higher math, but there were several equations and curves etc.   http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0007