Is an antimatter universe observable?

[Mordred]

Fair enough, treat the universe with all its particles as an ideal gas or perfect fluid.

 

Each particle contributor has an equation of state

 

 

Which correlates its energy density to pressure.

[latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex]

 

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

 

collectively the different w's combine to give the curvature constant k.

 

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

page 2

 

 

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

 

The other material will detail these links in greater detail

Edited January 31, 2015 by Mordred

[GeneralDadmission]

Ok. Thank you very much.

[Mordred]

No prob enjoy, feel free to ask questions on the material

[GeneralDadmission]

No prob enjoy, feel free to ask questions on the material

 

Ok. Question.

 

"

Acceleration of cosmic inflation

Cosmic inflation and the accelerated expansion of the Universe can be characterized by the equation of state of dark energy. In the simplest case, the equation of state of the cosmological constant is . In this case, the above expression for the scale factor is not valid and , where the constant H is the Hubble parameter. More generally, the expansion of the Universe is accelerating for any equation of state . The accelerated expansion of the Universe was indeed observed.^[1] According to observations, the value of equation of state of cosmological constant is near -1.

Hypothetical phantom energy would have an equation of state , and would cause a Big Rip. Using the existing data, it is still impossible to distinguish between phantom and non-phantom ."

If the value of cosmological expansion is -1, would the dynamic underlying expansion be definable as a square root equation?

This question is addressed somewhat in the next passage on Fluids.

 

This is the first I have heard of quintessence in connection to dark energy. I have been investigating the matter/antimatter universe proposal as that model establishes a quintessence mechanism AFAICT.

Edited February 1, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[Mordred]

Quintessence was a once model to explain the cosmological constant. It was found not to be a valid theory. Though I cannot recall the reason why it was shown invalid. Current literature on quintessence is few and far between.

 

You will also learn that the Cosmological constant was at one time due to quantum mechanics Heisenberg uncertainty principle in the form of the quantum harmonic oscillator, however this form produces 120 orders of magnitude too much energy. This is a process of virtual particle/anti particle annihilations.

 

Currently the latest hope also lies with the Higgs seesaw mechanism.

 

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755

http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801

 

This may also explain inflation, Currently there is still 70+ valid to observation inflation models.

As far as expansion the acceleration equation of the FLRW metric is used

 

[latex]d_2=-c^2dt^2+\frac{a^2dr^2}{1-kr^2}[/latex]

K is the curvature constant

a is the scale factor which represents expansion at a point in time.

 

The cosmological constant is represented with

 

[latex]\Lambda[/latex]

Edited February 1, 2015 by Mordred

[GeneralDadmission]

Quintessence was a once model to explain the cosmological constant. It was found not to be a valid theory. Though I cannot recall the reason why it was shown invalid. Current literature on quintessence is few and far between.

 

You will also learn that the Cosmological constant was at one time due to quantum mechanics Heisenberg uncertainty principle in the form of the quantum harmonic oscillator, however this form produces 120 orders of magnitude too much energy.

 

Currently the latest hope also lies with the Higgs seesaw mechanism.

 

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755

http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801

 

This may also explain inflation, Currently there is still 70+ valid to observation inflation models.

 

Seesaw? I haven't heard that description of the Higgs mechansim.

I don't see any reason why a Higgs mechanism would exclude a matter/antimatter universe. Are they exclusive?

[Mordred]

The seesaw mechanism is a mexican hat potential descriptive. In the TeV energy range the Higgs has a metastability and its influence changes, the result is that it's influence on quarks etc also changes.

 

Those articles cover it in better detail. The metastability if I recall is roughly 10^19 GeV

 

This also coincides with the temperature in the inflation era

[GeneralDadmission]

The seesaw mechanism is a mexican hat potential descriptive. In the TeV energy range the Higgs has a metastability and its influence changes, the result is that it's influence on quarks etc also changes.

 

Those articles cover it in better detail. The metastability if I recall is roughly 10^19 GeV

 

This also coincides with the temperature in the inflation era

 

I don't see any reason why a Higgs mechanism would exclude a matter/antimatter universe. Are they exclusive?

[Mordred]

The Higgs doesn't exclude a matter antimatter universe in and of itself.

 

However that model used a time reversal process to work. At one time antimatter was misconstrued as moving backward in time. This was a consequence of a math technique to explain its opposite charge.

 

Today we know antimatter works the same as matter the only difference is it is opposite charge to its matter opposite.

The other details is the big bang model doesn't describe how the universe began. Only covers our observable portion after 10^-43 sec

 

We don't know if it is finite or infinite. Matter/antimatter universe assumes finite.(cannot work in infinite universe without time reversal)

The other details is the big bang model doesn't describe how the universe began. Only covers our observable portion after 10^-43 sec

 

 

One of the earlier papers on SO(10) covers baryogenesis.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Mordred

[GeneralDadmission]

The Higgs doesn't exclude a matter antimatter universe in and of itself.

 

However that model used a time reversal process to work. At one time antimatter was misconstrued as moving backward in time. This was a consequence of a math technique to explain its opposite charge.

 

Today we know antimatter works the same as matter the only difference is it is opposite charge to its matter opposite.

 

Involving time in describing the model is of little benefit. As I understand it the charge superposition is imposed on the vacuum providing either with an opposing inflationary value. It is only vacuum velocity that would separate either constituent. That is about my take on it. I guess I referenced voids because if there were a place where an antimatter universe might be measured/observed from it would be in an environment with minimal gravitation.

I'd guess if one had access to a void the nature of the double slit experiment would allow a method to observe an antimatter universe. That doesn't mean I'm volunteering to be sent anywhere though.

[Mordred]

Lol

 

The double slit doesn't involve antimatter. It's probability is due to a particles spin.

 

There has been numerous attempts to consider antimatter involved in the cosmological constant. So its not unheard of. Google zero energy universe.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063

 

read this you will see the Casimiir effect involved.

This was about the strongest matter/antimatter process models until the 120 orders of magnitude too large a value was discovered.

[GeneralDadmission]

Lol

 

The double slit doesn't involve antimatter. It's probability is due to a particles spin.

 

There has been numerous attempts to consider antimatter involved in the cosmological constant. So its not unheard of. Google zero energy universe.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063

 

read this you will see the Casimiir effect involved.

 

I understand the experiment. What I assume is that within a void probability should allow a method of observation of an antimatter universe should it be there. I do not have enough technical knowledge on photon defraction to pursue that subject however. It is entirely a speculation. I have cleared up a couple of questions that were avoiding my clear comprehension. Thanks for the references Mordred.

[Mordred]

No problem, anytime