sandyer Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 This dawned on me the other day. This is my original post in the Science and Technology section of the Volconvo Debate Forums. I think it will be better answered here considered I am far more likily to get a qualified person to glance at this. I have a question for any physicists out there that dawned on me in the middle of physics class while I was off in my own world (Summer school is just so much fun). Tell me is my logic makes sense or if I just have an over active imagination. The Facts 1. We have the most common and studied sub-atomic particles the Neutron, Proton and Electron. Each one is different in mass and charge; electron is negative, proton is positive and neutron is neutral. Each one of these has a corresponding anti-particle. Each anti-particle is identical to its corresponding in mass but differs in that they have opposing charges. This means that when they come within a close enough distance they are attracted to one another, when they come together they mutually annihilate each other because of the characteristics of what they are. 2. An electron's negative charge provides equilibrium to a proton's positive despite the mass difference. 3. At the moment of the creation of the universe there was no matter but energy only then after that was matter created. (correct me if my interpretation was incorrect with my previous statement). Matter was being created and being almost immediately annihilated but some how a small majority of common matter (if we were made out of anti-matter instead we would consider common matter Anti-matter so that is my name for it) was formed. We have the facts now for my idea. If it has already been thought of shoot me for my stupidity but know for my ponderings. Thesis: A proton and a positron (the opposite of an electron) have are equal in their charge and have the same charge so would repulse each other. There could be no such unequal amount of common matter - antimatter ratio. They exist in different area of space because of concentration of antimatter and common matter in different sections of space. In the early universe the density of matter was extreme but in the few moments when you had a common particle and an anti-particle a different particle could make its way into the gap between the two. If they were charged then one would be attracted while the other repulsed. This would prevent a pair from mutual annihilation and with the likelihood of this happening over and over again many times you could get quite a number of these broken pairs. The random change of clumping (which is quite likely) causes small gravitational centers to build upon form. The universe is infinite so there is so many chances for this to happen. The gravitational centers would attract more particles resulting in some clumps being annihilated (by the meeting of common-matter/anti-matter) but some would only collect only like matter. The universe is expanding so it becomes less likely that the matter would be come across its opposite... That is as far as I've thought it out. It makes sense to me but does it fit with what we know about the universe. And how out my leauge am I. (I need to find out so it will stop re-surfacing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 If you had areas of antimatter, you would get annihilation radiation at the boundary shared with matter. This is not observed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 if electrons and positrons have identical charges then why do the curve in opposite directions when travelling through a magnetic field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someguy Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 i've kinda thought something like that before.. but not all of it. I was thinking that it could be that matter never really formed until it was possible for matter and anti-matter to be produced far enough from each other so that they did not interfere with each other.. which almost goes without saying because if they annihilate each other they couldn't really form near each other. So, if they formed far away from each other like this then wouldn't it be possible that in actuality some of the galaxies and stuff we are seeing consist entirely of anti-matter? do we have a way of testing that? What's the range of those charges? do they grow in size as the matter accumulates? how far would you need to be in order to be out of range of a anti-galaxy? Is it possible to have a large enough buffer between matter and anti-matter so that there is no annihilation radiation? ...what's annihilation radiation? I was also wondering, how come it is believed that there must be equal quantities of matter and anti matter in the universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandyer Posted July 7, 2007 Author Share Posted July 7, 2007 If you had areas of antimatter, you would get annihilation radiation at the boundary shared with matter. This is not observed. I hadn't thought of that. But what we observe isn't happening right now our data is a couple million years old. if electrons and positrons have identical charges then why do the curve in opposite directions when travelling through a magnetic field? No I said that Protons and Positrons have the some charge. Positrons and electrons have opposing charges which is why they only need to get close make annihilation almost impossible to prevent due to the atrraction of the particles. i've kinda thought something like that before.. but not all of it. I was thinking that it could be that matter never really formed until it was possible for matter and anti-matter to be produced far enough from each other so that they did not interfere with each other.. which almost goes without saying because if they annihilate each other they couldn't really form near each other. So, if they formed far away from each other like this then wouldn't it be possible that in actuality some of the galaxies and stuff we are seeing consist entirely of anti-matter? do we have a way of testing that? What's the range of those charges? do they grow in size as the matter accumulates? how far would you need to be in order to be out of range of a anti-galaxy? Is it possible to have a large enough buffer between matter and anti-matter so that there is no annihilation radiation? ...what's annihilation radiation? I was also wondering, how come it is believed that there must be equal quantities of matter and anti matter in the universe? The thing is common-matter and anti-matter are formed in together and usually when things happen naturally they only exist for moments before they come back together which requires small distance that they be seperated by that means they would comes apart then quickly come together again. The early universe was very crowded so it wasn't 'if' particle would interact during thier brief time in existance but to what degree. It is very possible for there to be anit-matter galaxies, we wouldn't be able to see them because they would use anti-photons instead of common-photons to emit light which would mutually destruct upon entering our galaxy. For the charges question I'll use the anolgy of an atom. For every proton you need an electron to balance this. So in a way charges grow a bit. For range that is beyond me. Annihilation radiation? Like I said before common-Matter and Antimatter should be equal because they form together you can not have one without the other. It is a great mystery in science why they would be an imbalance. My theory tries to address just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someguy Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 Isn't it possible then that dark matter would actually be anti-matter? and the reason it is dark is because as you say the anti photons are destroyed upon contact with regular matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 anti-photons are exactly the same as normal photons. a photon is its own anti-particle. and with matter-anitmatter interactions, a positron will only annihilate an electron. it will not annihilate if it contacts a proton or a neutron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someguy Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 so photons can't annihilate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 no, not really. they can interfere though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 so photons can't annihilate? IIRC (it was a couple of years ago I did this), the anti-photon of a photon looks identical but moving the other way in time. So it is identical but moving the other way. So when they are in the same region of space they interfere completely destructively. Isn't it possible then that dark matter would actually be anti-matter? and the reason it is dark is because as you say the anti photons are destroyed upon contact with regular matter? No. Because we would see annihilation at the boundaries as swansont says above, we do not. Also on another note, often times when you get electron-positron formation from unstable nucleus, (there is a sodium isotope that does this I seem to recall), then the two move far enough apart so the positron annihilates with a remote electron, not it's creation partner... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 IIRC (it was a couple of years ago I did this), the anti-photon of a photon looks identical but moving the other way in time. So it is identical but moving the other way. So when they are in the same region of space they interfere completely destructively. Except time has no meaning to photons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Except time has no meaning to photons. Yes it does. The wavefunction of a photon has a time dependent part, else they would not propagate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 IIRC (it was a couple of years ago I did this), the anti-photon of a photon looks identical but moving the other way in time. So it is identical but moving the other way. So when they are in the same region of space they interfere completely destructively. And what do you get as the result of photon/antiphoton annihilation? Energy and momentum must be conserved. The photon is its own antiparticle, as i_a said - you can't distinguish them from each other. Except time has no meaning to photons. This is often cited, but AFAIK it's a result of using the Lorentz transform to put you into a v=c frame, and looking at the diverging time dilation. I'm not convinced that's valid. (Having said that, there are parts of physics that have photons taking all paths in the universe from point A to point B, but most of them interfere and cancel. But one might consider that how something behaves and what it's really doing might not be the same thing. Physics vs metaphysics.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someguy Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 I can't say for certain that that time has meaning for photons or not, but since i've heard this from other sources i strongly believe it does. the faster you move, from your perspective, the less time it takes you to move from point a to point b (differently from an observer. i mean it in the relativity sense not the Newtonian one). at some point you should be able to arrive at point b from point a instantaneously (from your perspective), that would seem to need to be the limit of speed since you couldn't possibly get there faster than instantly. But arriving somewhere in an instant would seem to be an impossible feat. so then this speed would need to be impossible for you to reach. It would make sense that this speed would be the speed of light since it is the speed limit of matter, and if light moves at this speed then it would be able to arrive to point b in an instant, from its perspective, not a stationary observer. I know that was a far cry from proof but I find it sort of makes time not having meaning for light make more sense, it settles with me better. maybe the point where you can arrive instantly is beyond the speed of light but i find it's sort of more tidy if it coincides with the speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 And what do you get as the result of photon/antiphoton annihilation? Energy and momentum must be conserved. The photon is its own antiparticle, as i_a said - you can't distinguish them from each other. Well I'd imagine you'd get 2 photons identical to the 2 that "annihilate" so you would in fact not be able to tell that it had happened, if it indeed had. Which makes my point completely well pointless I should really just give up and go back to bed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 This is often cited, but AFAIK it's a result of using the Lorentz transform to put you into a v=c frame, and looking at the diverging time dilation. I'm not convinced that's valid. Sure, but my book said it, so it must be true. Just kidding. I see what you mean there. I'll have to go back and re-read the source to see what the book's author said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 This is often cited, but AFAIK it's a result of using the Lorentz transform to put you into a v=c frame, and looking at the diverging time dilation. I'm not convinced that's valid. No - it is definition. Simultaneous events are ones which lie on the same light cone, so all events in a photon's 'life' are simultaneous by definition, and therefore time is meaningless to a photon. You can define time differently if you like, but then you are being non-conventional... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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