SmallIsPower Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 I've read that anti-matter is equavalent to matter going backwards in time,, so before you flame me, consider this if anti-matter is created at time=0 [The Big Bang], could it be that we don't find any because its gone to the time before Space-time existed?
Dr. Dalek Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 If the "Big Crunch" theory is true then that would mean that we would just now be encountering antimater from the future. Wouldn't it?
ecoli Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 antimatter it matter with opposite charge... where did you pick up the 'backwards in time' bull?
Klaynos Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 The backwards in time stuff, is a way of modeling anti-matter.... The maths is the same for anti-matter as normal matter moving backwards in time...
Edtharan Posted July 3, 2006 Posted July 3, 2006 The backwards in time stuff, is a way of modeling anti-matter.... Yes it is just a way of modeling the behaviour of antimatter. There is no way (to my knowledge) to prove that antimatter is realy just matter going backwards in time. It might, or it might not.
ajb Posted July 3, 2006 Posted July 3, 2006 The answer is no. In the early universe equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were present. It is thought that there is some asymmetry in the interactions so that after all the anti-matter has combined with the matter there is some matter left. As far as I know there is no established theory which explains this asymmetry. However, assuming that this mechanism does exist every one billion and one protons would have to annihilate with one billion anti-protons to produce one proton to one billion photons. If you want to know more you should look up baryogenesis in a cosmology book. I recommend the book by Andrew Liddle "An Introduction to Modern Cosmology".
SmallIsPower Posted July 5, 2006 Author Posted July 5, 2006 Yes it is just a way of modeling the behaviour of antimatter. There is no way (to my knowledge) to prove that antimatter is realy[/i'] just matter going backwards in time. It might, or it might not. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Things can go both ways in space, and we have something that looks like it does in time, too,
Edtharan Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Not nessesarily. It is a good line, but it is not realy useable in a logical discussion (and besides, what kind of duck ). A planet can be modeled as a single point (for use in calculating gravity for instance), but it is not a single point (and arn't we glad of that ). So the modle of an a positron (antielectron) might be able to be calculated as if it was just an electron going backwards in time, but in reality, the model is not reality and so could be wrong. However: the simplified model that we use to model antimatter might encapsulate some fundimental aspect of it and the fact that the model acts as if a positron is just a time reversed electron might be true. Unfortunately, I can't think of any experiment that would be conclusive in this (though it might be possible).
Rocket Man Posted July 7, 2006 Posted July 7, 2006 anti matter has been created, google the CERN antiproton decellerator, anti matter behaves EXACTLY like normal matter, they created several hundred anti protons, held them isolated an a magnetic bottle, and fired positrons at them to make anti hydrogen, they then left containmet and neutralised against the casing, anihilating one electron and one proton from the casing material per one anti hydrogen atom. i think they also had diatomic molecules forming in the anti hydrogen. their relationship to time is the same as ordinary matter.
ajb Posted July 10, 2006 Posted July 10, 2006 Rocket man is talking about the Athena project at Cern. http://athena.web.cern.ch/athena/ All the theory points to the fact that matter and anti-matter behave the same. This is due to some deep theorems of quantum field theory like the CPT theorem. It is a good test of quantum field theory and the standard model. However, these ideas need to be tested and so Athena was born. On a personal note, Mike Charlton is head of the physics department at the university of swansea. I did my undergrad studies at swansea. I think he joined in my final year.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now