origin of the universe. matter/antimatter

[granpa]

if there is its far beyond me.

[Klaynos]

So, how do you know?

[thedarkshade]

Going in circles again:D

[granpa]

you seem to see some great trouble with the idea that large amounts of matter and antimatter might have annihilated each other very shortly after the big bang. I dont see any trouble with it at all as long as it occured before the universe became transparent. the only effect would have been to raise the temp of the universe so it would have taken slightly longer to cool (due to expansion)

 

my assumption has always been that all this occurred very very soon after the big bang while the density of matter and energy was still very very high.

 

now really. this is becoming tiresome. I see no trouble here at all. if you do then its on you to show it.

Edited December 22, 2008 by granpa

[Klaynos]

My trouble with it is, the standard one, during the early universe why wasn't ALL the matter and antimatter anihillated. I am not convinced that a gravitaional effect would be enough to over come this issue when the density was low enough for stable matter, but heigh enough for it to be very shortly after the BB. This would need some decent mathematical calcualations...

[granpa]

there is no trouble. its your understanding that is wrong. it doest have to wait for the density to become low before it can take place.

 

only you know what 'low enough for stable matter' means. as far as I can tell its a meaningless statement.

[Klaynos]

At very high densities thers is no massive particles.

 

So yuo need the energy density to be low enough for these to form and to be stable.

 

Else there cannot be any fluctuations in energy due to gravity.

[swansont]

you seem to see some great trouble with the idea that large amounts of matter and antimatter might have annihilated each other very shortly after the big bang. I dont see any trouble with it at all as long as it occured before the universe became transparent. the only effect would have been to raise the temp of the universe so it would have taken slightly longer to cool (due to expansion)

 

Why would it raise the temperature? Energy is conserved.

 

In fact, under your conjecture that matter repels antimatter, that's positive potential energy. Annihilating and replacing that with a attractive gravitational force represents a reduction in energy, absent other mechanisms to preserve conservation of energy. If anything, this would be a cooling mechanism.

[granpa]

on a side note:

if matter and antimatter repel then energy/light would be expected to have no net gravitational mass (but now that i think about it it might have inertial mass).

i would fully expect that gravitational mass would always be perfectly conserved.

Putting these together implies that inertial mass would not always equal to gravitational mass.

(Neither would the ratio of inertial mass to gravitational mass always be the same for all materials)

 

where F₂=the force on mass2 due to the gravity of mass1 we have the well known equations:

(g means 'gravitational' and i means inertial)

F

₂

=-G*M

_g1

M

_g2

/ r

²

F

₂

=M

_i2

a

₂

which if and only if M

_i2

= M

_g2

gives

a

₂

=-G*M

_g1

/ r

²

(acceleration of Mass

₂

is independent of the mass of Mass

₂

)

 

if instead the equations were revised to read:

F

₂

=-G*M

_g1

M

_i2

/ r

²

F

₂

=M

_i2

a

₂

which gives a

₂

=-G*M

_g1

/ r

²

(acceleration of Mass

₂

is independent of the mass of Mass

₂

regardless of whether M

_i2

= M

_g2

)

 

assuming that the revised equations are true and that M_i2 and M_g2 differed by a small amount

(for instance by the binding energy of the nucleus) then how would we know?

the revised equations also imply that F₁ would not be equal to F₂.

However, the net force would be so small that i can see no way of testing it.

Edited October 3, 2010 by granpa
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

(g means 'gravitational' and i means inertial)

F₂=-G*M_g1M_g2 / r²

F₂=M_i2a₂

which if and only if M_i2 = M_g2 gives

a₂=-G*M_g1/ r² (acceleration is independent of mass)

 

How can you have an equation that contains mass in it and declare that it's independent of mass?

 

a₂=-G*M_g1/ r²

M_g1is mass. OBVIOUSLY acceleration is dependent upon it, just look at the equation.

[granpa]

the context makes it clear that i mean that the acceleration of an object in a gravitational field is independent of the mass of the object undergoing the acceleration.

 

hence a feather and a hammer dropped by an astronaut from the same height at the same time hit the moon at the same moment.

Edited April 9, 2009 by granpa

[mooeypoo]

the context makes it clear that i mean that the acceleration of an object is independent of the mass of the accelerating object. hence a feather and a hammer dropped by an astronaut hit the moon at the same time.

What are you talking about grandpa? You gave us a formula, and the formula clearly shows that mass is part of the calculation for acceleration, which means taht acceleration is absolutely dependent on mass.

 

If you think otherwise, you need to prove yourself. You can't expect to post a proof, have it fail miserably, and then have us accept your idea regardless.

 

That's not the way things work.