Twin universes - our answer for our own existence?

[quocdat]

This is not a paper but just a silly idea from a secondary school student. 

Looking forward to hearing your comments.

Thank you so much!

Twin universes.docx

 

 

 

[Ghideon]

I might take a look if you post the material here on the forum. 

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations.

The rules say you need to provide the information here, not rely on a link or document.

Note: I would strongly recommend anyone against downloading a Word document from an unknown source.

 

[quocdat]

Oh. I made it my self since Word is easier to work with equations.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

This might sound weird but I am thatstudent. :))

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, quocdat said:

Oh. I made it my self since Word is easier to work with equations.

Sorry for the confusion.

You should be able to save the file as PDF and upload that, it would be better than Word (not everyone can read Word documents).

You might be able to copy and paste the text here and get he equations, I don't know. Or you could use LaTeX to write the equations here directly (which may be a useful skill later in life if you are studying science or math).

Quote

This might sound weird but I am thatstudent. :))

Somehow I am not surprised.

 

And good for you for being imaginative and interested in science. You might get some "tough" responses from people here, but that is the way science is: new ideas are heavily criticised. But people will be challenging the idea, not attacking you. (I will stay out of this thread as I have already responded as a Moderator...)

[quocdat]

Thank you so much for your advice.

I am new to this so I am a little bit nervous.

Basically, my idea is that in the beginning, the big bang created two parallel universes. After a short time, matter and anti-matter were created and they had the original tendency to bounce between universes and the frequency of this process is equal to the wave frequency of that particle. So maybe when let's say an electron and a positron were going to collide with each other, suddenly one of them bounce to the other universe, and in order for that to cancel the destruction, they have to move insanely fast.  I have done the calculation for electron and they had to move at 99.9995% the speed of light ( which I thought was crazy and unreal). But the universe in the early age was hot and dense enough for this to happen. And it is because of pure luck that more positrons bounced to the other side than electrons.

That is my simple ideal. 

I am going to fix my document as soon as I can.

Thank you once again for your comments.

 

 

 

 

This is a copy of my idea.

Thank you for your time.

Twin universes – The explanation to the existence of everything.
Hello everybody. Let me start just by saying that I am just a 15 years old boy who is really into physics and the mysteries of the universe. Although I have a great interest in theoretical physics and I am trying my best, I still cannot say with 100% confident that I am “good with math”. I am simply a person that dream a lot and often dream about the things I cannot achieve. So I am really sure that there are a lot of mistakes in this idea of mine, so if you guys spot them, please inform me. Thank you so much!

Ok. Through books, documentaries and the Internet, I have found many problems in physics, even with all of our advanced technology and all of the brilliant minds in the field, still are remaining unsolved. Upon those, the one I found the most intriguing is the question of how can this universe even exist in the first place. If there are an equal number of anti-matter and matter created after the big bang, aren’t they supposed to cancel each other out and the only thing in this universe should be only radiation?
A lot of theories have been invented, however, failed to explain this. I think that there must be a different solution to this problem besides assuming that there is a process that gives matter an advantage over anti-matter since we have not known what is that process yet despite countless experiment, and the idea that there is a gigantic pile of anti-matter somewhere since if that was true, there would be a huge and constant amount of radiation around the universe.
So I came up with my own theory. That is the big bang did not just create one universe, it created two parallel universes. After doing some research, I found out that this idea has been brought up before by some physicists, I am probably the only one using that to explain the existence of both universes. If I am wrong, then I am sorry for not doing a good enough job at gathering information.
So, let’s begin. When the big bang took place, it created not one but two universes. After about 10^-32 s, matter and anti-matter began to form in both universes. However, there is a catch. All of the subatomic particles were vibrating between two universes, both anti-matter and matter. This means that everything disappeared in this universe and then transformed itself to the other and then did the same thing all over again. This happened repeatedly and with a certain frequency and it is the reason why we are here today.
The main two points of my theory are:
+the big bang created two universes, ours and one other with the frequency that is equal to the frequency of the de Broglie wave of that particle.
+matter and anti-matter both vibrated between them in the early age of the universe.
+if one particle in this universe is in a specific position that matches its anti-particle in the other universe, there will be a really strong interaction between them through the two universes (Đ) and it will keep them in their universe forever.
So my idea is really simple. Firstly, the frequency of that procedure is:
f=(mv^2)/(h√(1-v^2/c^2 ))
So the time for a particle to disappear and then reappear in a universe would be:
t=h/(mv^2 ) √(1-v^2/c^2 )
From this, we can see that in order for there to be a possibility that a particle and its anti-particle will not destroy each other, the time that they pass through each other must be longer than the time it takes for them to disappear and reappear.
If we imagine a particle to be a sphere, we can calculate this.
Given that r is the radius of the particle, we can see that for the two particles to have a non 0% chance of canceling each other out, or in another way, for a particle to “exist”, it must satisfy the following inequation:

h/(mv^2 ) √(1-v^2/c^2 )≤4r/(2v⁄(1+v^2/c^2 ))
Or:
(√(1-v^2/c^2 ))/(v(1+v^2/c^2 ))≤4 hr/m

This is the inequation of creation. 
Basically, this is what an electron – positron pair in different universes would look like.

The interaction ( in which I use the letter Đ in the Vietnamese alphabet to represent the interaction).To be honest, I don’t have the Math skill required to find the strength of this interaction. I hope that someone can find this out ( in the case that my idea is not completely wrong of course). However, I know that this interaction must be nearly or really unbreakable since we have never observed matter just disappear or appear out of nowhere.
We can also relate the velocity of a particle to its energy and we will see that in order for a particle to be stable, it will need to move at near the speed of light, or have an incredible amount of energy. Both of these things were available in the early age of the universe, right after the big bang, when everything was in a hot, dense soup. So the chance of a pair of particle and its anti-counterpart destroying each other is not 100%. This also means that the infinite universe that we are living in today was made due to pure luck, and the odds were actually against our existence.
If an unstable particle hits a stable particle, then two things can happen: they all disappear if it hits the anti-counterpart or they will deflect each other if it hits its own kind.
I am not sure about this, but this can also explain Hawking radiation since being near a black hole will give you an enormous amount of potential energy, and the creation of matter and anti-matter.
So that is basically it. In order to create matter, you need a whole lot of energy and this will only give you only a chance of creating matter.
I’m not confident at all about my math, so like I said, there are definitely mistakes in this. It is not really a paper or an article, it is just an idea that I had in my free time.
I look forward to hearing comments from you guys.

 

[Ghideon]

Hello, I have read the idea and I'll give some feedback*. First I'll have to ask for some clarifications about general aspects, Ok?

 

7 hours ago, quocdat said:

So, let’s begin. When the big bang took place, it created not one but two universes. After about 10^-32 s, matter and anti-matter began to form in both universes. However, there is a catch. All of the subatomic particles were vibrating between two universes, both anti-matter and matter. This means that everything disappeared in this universe and then transformed itself to the other and then did the same thing all over again. This happened repeatedly and with a certain frequency and it is the reason why we are here today.

Was an equal amount of matter and anti-matter created? What mechanism or process in your idea makes more anti matter end up in the parallel universe and more regular matter end up in our observable universe? Why is there matter, and not just a lot of radiation, in our universe?

 

7 hours ago, quocdat said:

+if one particle in this universe is in a specific position that matches its anti-particle in the other universe, there will be a really strong interaction between them through the two universes (Đ) and it will keep them in their universe forever.

It seems to imply that if I move particles in this universe, for instance my hand, the "locked/interacting" particles in the parallel universe must also move, otherwise random disappearance of particles would be happen? Is this process of locking particles in their universes, at the exact location of an anti-particle counterpart, an ongoing process right now? Or something that took place in the early time when universe was hotter and denser? 

 

*) I may have limited time for a few days so progress may be a little slow and I may need to comment on only a limited number of things at a time. Some of my statements will not be scientifically/physically rigorous; I'll try to use words and phrases even if they are not fully defined yet, to get a discussion going. 

Edited January 2, 2019 by Ghideon
spelling and grammar

[quocdat]

First of all, in the beginning, thế number of matter and anti-matter we're the same, this is obvious and suit our knowledge so far. Due to the property of quantum mechanics, there are more anti-matter bounced to the other universe is just due to our luck. In fact, the chance that the universe being destroyed in the first place was higher since there was an equal chance for matter to bounce. However, that chance is not 100% and we exist due to luck.

The lock mechanism will go on forever since it is unbreakable, is not, then anti matter would jump back and the universe would be destroyed. However, in order for it to form, the particle needs to move at speed close to the speed of light and has a gigantic amount of energy, something only exist in the hot early age of the universe. 

My theory also say that when matter and anti matter collide with each other, they do not necessarily have to destroy one another, in fact, if at the time of the collision, one pop out of our universe, the locked pair will be created and matter or anti-matter will be created. There are more matter than anti matter i because of luck.

[Ghideon]

22 hours ago, quocdat said:

The lock mechanism will go on forever since it is unbreakable, is not, then anti matter would jump back and the universe would be destroyed. However, in order for it to form, the particle needs to move at speed close to the speed of light and has a gigantic amount of energy, something only exist in the hot early age of the universe. 

Ok! I'll continue the discussion about the above statement. Note that I do not state whether the idea is possible and/or compatible with mainstream physics; I'll just try do draw conclusions from what your idea seems to describe:
At the present time the parallel universe is an exact "mirror" of ours. At this time an identical "antimatter Ghideon" is writing this comment in the parallel universe. Each and every matter particle in this universe has an antimatter twin in the parallel universe. Then also other kinds of particles must have a twin. For instance I react on photons sent from my screen (I just saw I made a typo...) and in the other universe the exact same thing happened with photons from the antimatter computer screen. Also any processes that are random or of statistical in nature must take place in an identical way; beta decay for instance. In the parallel universe, a matching unstable antimatter nucleus decay at the same time as a matter nucleus in our universe. This raises some initial questions:

1: A model describing how these two universes are "locked" has to be created. How can such a model be tested? Is such a model compatible with our observations?

2: Each process involving matter in this universe is mirrored by the same event for antimatter in the parallel universe. Is this supported by current observations? Or in other words, are there any processes where anti matter behaves in such a way that a mirror universe as described above is not possible? I haven't studied the details of antimatter for some time and not in the depth needed to elaborate further (yet).

Have you taken the above scenarios into consideration in your idea?
(It's also quite possible that I draw wrong or invalid conclusions from your descriptions.)

 

[quocdat]

I don't have enough math skill to build the complete model of the process. However, I believe that it is an interaction that connects the two universes, kind of like quantum entanglement but in a higher diemsion. For this I need an advanced skill in calculus which is something I am still trying to gain.

I know that due to the interaction, the processes in both universes must be the same, just with anti-matter. Velocity, spin, mass...in both universes must be the same. In other words, there is an anti quocdat writing this right now.

Oh and one correction, the lock mechanism will only be activated when the centers( imagine particles as spheres) are in place, so the inequation must be 2r, not 4r.

[quocdat]

In my opinion, the only way for this to be tested is that we create a pair of matter and anti-matter particles, then give them energy so that they move close to the speed of light and smash them to each other. There should be a chance that they do not destroy each other but what is left would be a particle or an anti particle. This happens in black holes' event horizon all the time since virtue particles there have an enormous amount of potential energy, so some of the virtue particles, in fact a great deal of it will be real particles. However, matter black holes should suck in anti-matter and anti-matter black holes should suck in matter (in the other universe). So we are left with matter only in our universe that we know as Hawking radiation. So i we can get close a black hole's event horizon and detect one trace of anti-matter there, this they shall be proven.

 

[Strange]

3 hours ago, quocdat said:

In my opinion, the only way for this to be tested is that we create a pair of matter and anti-matter particles, then give them energy so that they move close to the speed of light and smash them to each other.

Done: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron–Positron_Collider

[quocdat]

We cannot just accelerate electron and positron and then collide thêm with each other, we need to create a pair and accelerate both of them to nearly the speed of light and then collide thêm to each other, and we need to do this while keeping them from colliding to each other at first. We also need to repeat the experiment since even when traveling at near the speed of light, the chance of one particle standing i still not 100%. Only when we do the test and find out that only one particle, electron or positron is let standing, then we can conclude that the theory is right.

We also cannot just smash a stable electron and positron since they do not posses the bouncing ability between two worlds and will surely cancel each other out. 

Even if moving at 99.9999% the speed of light, the probability that one particle is let standing is still very small.

[Ghideon]

7 hours ago, quocdat said:

I don't have enough math skill to build the complete model of the process.

No problem, a complete model is not needed for the current discussion. (It will be required later.)

4 hours ago, quocdat said:

There should be a chance that they do not destroy each other but what is left would be a particle or an anti particle.

The idea is getting very complex, maybe there are other, simpler solutions that are more likely*? If you run the test and a particle "is transferred" to the parallel universe, then the antimatter version of the experiment running in the parallel universe also succeeded. Each universe gets, from the other universe, an additional particle of the opposite kind. This results in identical destruction of a pair of matter/antimatter particles in each universe?

58 minutes ago, quocdat said:

Even if moving at 99.9999% the speed of light, the probability that one particle is let standing is still very small.

How small? How many experiments have to run before scientists can draw any conclusions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

 

[quocdat]

37 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

The idea is getting very complex, maybe there are other, simpler solutions that are more likely*? If you run the test and a particle "is transferred" to the parallel universe, then the antimatter version of the experiment running in the parallel universe also succeeded. Each universe gets, from the other universe, an additional particle of the opposite kind. This results in identical destruction of a pair of matter/antimatter particles in each universe?

Yes. If we create a positron and an electron, then the same thing would happen in the other universe, since they will both appear at the same time and with the same coordinates in both universes, they will form two locks and two stable pair are born. This makes creating bouncing particle impossible for us since the two universes are identical. Thank you for making realise this.

This does not really say that the theory is wrong since in the early age of both universes, they were not the same. Photons moved at different direction in both universes because right after the big bang, there was no matter yet, so there were nó real sources for the photons. Now, if we create a pair, there would have to be a matter source, so the same thing, even the random, uncertainty things of quantum mechanics, would have to take place in the parallel universe as well. So it would be nearly impossible for us to reinact the big bang and prove this theory. So even though the theory, in my opinion is still a good explanation about the existence of the universe, proving it would be kind of impossible.

Maybe this can only be something to think on paper but cannot be proven in real life. This does not mean that it is a terrible idea, but the future for the theory is quite gloomy.

[quocdat]

I just have another idea of how we can support the theory. We cannot prove it directly since the symmetry between two universes is indestructible, so every pair of particles we create will lose their bouncing ability since they will interact with the particle from the other universes or they can interact with their own kind from the other universes and then destroy our anti-particle either way. In short, there is no way to replicate what happened 10^-32 s after the big bang. However, we can still support the theory (not proving it) by studying the background radiation. I'm not even sure if this is possible or not, it's just an idea in theory. If we measure the energy level of this chaotic time, we should be able to see that the energy level gradually dropped since the interaction between two universes needs energy so it takes some of the kinetic energy from the particles, slowing it down. Now if we can find a way to find out the exact time when the creation of stable matter and antimatter stopped, we can conclude that there must be a minimum level of energy density to create stable matter as we know today. I haven't figured it out how can we find this trace from such a long time ago, but if we can, then we should be able to conclude that there is a relationship between energy and the chances of creating stable matter and antimatter. If somehow, in the best and most futuristic way possible, we find out the amount of matter and antimatter in space through a period of time, then the number, according to my theory, is supposed to drop steadily when the universe cooled down. 

This our observation that there are no stable electrons or positron ( not counting virtue particles) suddenly pop in from nowhere into existence and that the universe is not constantly making new things to take all of it space, the creation process can only take place in a chaotic, unpredictable when there is no real source from photons and the energy level was high like the big bang. After a while, interaction started to link the two universes together and the creation stopped.

[Ghideon]

On 1/4/2019 at 12:02 PM, quocdat said:

This does not really say that the theory is wrong since in the early age of both universes, they were not the same.

I believe you should look at it the other way; what evidence can be provided that says the idea* is correct? 

On 1/4/2019 at 12:02 PM, quocdat said:

Maybe this can only be something to think on paper but cannot be proven in real life.

If an idea is not possible to test or falsify, even theoretically, it unfortunately has limited scientific value. It is rather easy to put together much simpler ideas, also untestable, that explains how the universe has more matter than antimatter. Did you by the way check Occam's Razor? 

On 1/5/2019 at 6:40 AM, quocdat said:

However, we can still support the theory (not proving it) by studying the background radiation. I'm not even sure if this is possible or not, it's just an idea in theory. If we measure the energy level of this chaotic time, we should be able to see that the energy level gradually dropped since the interaction between two universes needs energy so it takes some of the kinetic energy from the particles, slowing it down.

Background radiation has inspired work on what may be required for baryon asymmetry. If you are interested, see Sakharov conditions. wikipedia has some info and links to sources (some unfortunately seems to be behind a paywall).

On 1/2/2019 at 3:51 PM, quocdat said:

That is the big bang did not just create one universe, it created two parallel universes. After doing some research, I found out that this idea has been brought up before by some physicists,

Was Sakharov one of the physicists in your statement above? He seems to have tried twin universes (matter & antimatter) in the 80's. See for instance: http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_056_04_0705.pdf. I have limited knowledge about research of baryon asymmetry so I can't make a detailed comment on the material.

 

*) There's a lot more to be done before the twin universe idea can be called a theory (wikipedia definition, Scientific Theory)

[quocdat]

12 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I believe you should look at it the other way; what evidence can be provided that says the idea* is correct? 

If an idea is not possible to test or falsify, even theoretically, it unfortunately has limited scientific value. It is rather easy to put together much simpler ideas, also untestable, that explains how the universe has more matter than antimatter. Did you by the way check Occam's Razor? 

Background radiation has inspired work on what may be required for baryon asymmetry. If you are interested, see Sakharov conditions. wikipedia has some info and links to sources (some unfortunately seems to be behind a paywall).

3

I just came up with a way to prove this theory...I think. My confidence is not so high on this one. But here it goes.

I have changed my mind about the fact that the bond between the two universes is super weak, not super strong. The amount of energy that is in these bonds must be really small since what would happen if in the chaotic age of the universe when two universes had not bonded to each other yet, it was possible for a photon to hit an electron in one universe only, so what will happen? Well, in my opinion, the photon would break the bond and the electron spring free from the bond and a positron bounced back and forth. But perhaps due to the fact that the universes were in a high energy state so new particles were created to compensate for the lost one. However, after the creation era, the universe did not have enough energy to compensate anymore. So if we can somehow get the number of particles of the universes through time, we should see that number would reach the maximum and then it would slowly fall down until it reaches the number we see today. If we see this pattern, the theory should be the only theory able to explain it.

[Ghideon]

 

4 hours ago, quocdat said:

I have changed my mind about the fact that the bond between the two universes is super weak, not super strong.

Ok! But the line of reasoning now seems more like guesswork than scientific ideas.

4 hours ago, quocdat said:

new particles were created to compensate for the lost one

By adding a "refill-process" for lost particles a universe will always have an equal amount of matter and anti matter? 

Initially you stated (bold by me):

On 1/2/2019 at 3:51 PM, quocdat said:

The main two points of my theory are:
+the big bang created two universes, ours and one other with the frequency that is equal to the frequency of the de Broglie wave of that particle.
+matter and anti-matter both vibrated between them in the early age of the universe.
+if one particle in this universe is in a specific position that matches its anti-particle in the other universe, there will be a really strong interaction between them through the two universes (Đ) and it will keep them in their universe forever.

Since you have now removed the "strong interaction" of the idea and replaced it with a "super weak bond" there should be a lot of particles bouncing in and out of universe universe now, at this day. But in your calculations you stated:

On 1/2/2019 at 3:51 PM, quocdat said:

However, I know that this interaction must be nearly or really unbreakable since we have never observed matter just disappear or appear out of nowhere.

The various parts of the idea seems to contradict each other.  

Edited January 8, 2019 by Ghideon
incorrect sentence

[quocdat]

16 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Initially you stated (bold by me):

Since you have now removed the "strong interaction" of the idea and replaced it with a "super weak bond" there should be a lot of particles bouncing in and out of universenow, at this day. But in your calculations you stated:

The various parts of the idea seems to contradict each other.  

 

Actually, though it may seem confusing at first, it is all logical. I thought that in order to withstand the enormous forces and gigantic sources of energy throughout the univers

the interaction between the two worlds must be unbreakable.  However, if we consider the fact that the two universes are completely alike to one another, in another way, what happens in one universe would also occur to the other so the symmetry cannot be broken in this era ( unlike the chaotic early age of the universe). This means that although the interaction is very weak, if there are no changes in the symmetry, then the bond would still last, that is the true reason why particles don't just disappear and then reappear once again constantly. One more important reason for this is that if the amount of energy in each bond is huge, then we would violate the law of energy conservation. Of course, we can fix that by saying that the system consists of two universes instead of one but this is more likely and simpler. If you imagine in the early era of the universe when the two universes had not been the same yet if a photon in our universe hit a stable electron ( an electron that is already connected to a positron in the other universe), what would happen? If the amount of energy in the bond is big, then you would think that the photon will not have enough energy to break the bond, but since we are talking about the early age of the universe when everything is hot and dense, we can say with absolute confidence that the photon has enough energy to break the bond no matter how strong it is since the electron came from the photon anyway. So if the amount of energy stored in the bond is huge, then what would happen after the bond is broken and the electron get deflected, will a gigantic amount of energy just come out of nowhere? To me, it is hard to believe that a big amount of energy would just appear out of nowhere and most of the energy is stored in the bond, not in the universes.

So, the only logical explanation to me is if the amount of energy in the bond is a super tiny amount that would break under any smallest non-symmetrical impact. So the electron in our little example would be deflected, leaving behind the positron it really thin and weak, if no force is acted on it, then it would just last internity.                                    Oh, and another thing. T

Sorry, there was an error in my laptop.

What I meant to say is:

If we imagine an electron and positron bonding to each other, their bond would first have an enormous amount of energy since they would both stop moving when joining together. However, most of the energy in the bond will be evenly distributed between the two particles and they will continue to move at near the speed of light, only a tiny amount of energy is left in the bond. This fit our current knowledge that space in that early age was hot and dense so particles were moving near the speed of light, not losing most of their energy in an instance.

[Ghideon]

 

6 hours ago, quocdat said:

So, the only logical explanation to me is if the amount of energy in the bond is a super tiny amount that would break under any smallest non-symmetrical impact

Isn't a more logical explanation is that the whole idea unfortunately is wrong? The explanation above makes the central part of the idea ("symmetric universes") seem logically* impossible: any "non-symmetrical impact" will break the symmetry. That implies that there was always a perfect symmetry between the universes and no initial "chaotic era". If there was ever only a tiny asymmetry that would have prevented any symmetry to be stable/persistent?

I'm using " " around many concepts; there is no scientific definition in the idea. I use whatever you use and discuss the logic only, not whether the concepts have any physical meaning or not.

 

*) Note that I make limited attempts at commenting physics of your ideas; there are too many contradicting statements.